Chinese jets "unsafely" intercept U.S. military plane over South China Sea

[S10]

name me one country who is begging chinese ships to be present in south china sea... most of china's neighbors feel threaten with chinese aggression . if fact all these asian countries was the ones who ask america to return to asia-pacific

So who appointed you world police for 70 countries you invaded/meddled in since your foundation? Funny how you talk about "Chinese aggression" coming from a habitual aggressor like US. Other than Vietnam, Philippines and Japan, we get along just fine with everyone else. We really don't care what your old colonial lapdogs in Asia ask of you.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

So who appointed you world police for 70 countries you invaded/meddled in since your foundation? Funny how you talk about "Chinese aggression" coming from a habitual aggressor like US. Other than Vietnam, Philippines and Japan, we get along just fine with everyone else. We really don't care what your old colonial lapdogs in Asia ask of you.

I am sure the cheeks of all Indians here will drop to the floor.
Who remembers the war with the Soviets anyway.
Taiwan is not really considered a neighbour, right?
Considering sanctions on North Korea is just another way of getting along.

That leaves Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar and Pakistan .

 

[S10]

I am sure the cheeks of all Indians here will drop to the floor.
Who remembers the war with the Soviets anyway.
Taiwan is not really considered a neighbour, right?
Considering sanctions on North Korea is just another way of getting along.

That leaves Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar and Pakistan .

India and Soviet? Did you wake up from a coma after several decades? The world has changed a lot since then. The border clash with India was in 1962, and the one with USSR was in 1969. China is India's largest trade partner nowadays, while Russia has steadily been edging closer in the past decade. Even with the possibility of sanction, China remains North Korea's only lifeline. You'd really think they would turn hostile? That long coma must have killed off quite a few of your brain cells.

You're right though, Taiwan is not a neighbor. It's a breakaway province that was prevented from being unified due to American meddling in 1949 civil war. That's something that needs to be rectified in the next decade.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

India and Soviet? Did you wake up from a coma after several decades? The world has changed a lot since then. The border clash with India was in 1962, and the one with USSR was in 1969. China is India's largest trade partner nowadays, while Russia has steadily been edging closer in the past decade. Even with the possibility of sanction, China remains North Korea's only lifeline. You'd really think they would turn hostile? That long coma must have killed off quite a few of your brain cells.

You're right though, Taiwan is not a neighbor. It's a breakaway province that was prevented from being unified due to American meddling in 1949 civil war. That's something that needs to be rectified in the next decade.

India is certainly considering the possibility that China attacks once more.
Why would they spend so much money on the armed forces and speak about a two-front war otherwise.
On Soviet/Russia, I was wrong, You did remember .
Applying sanctions is not "getting along fine"...

 

[Indus Pakistan]

A blockade is an act of war

Thanks. Did not know that.

nationalized
U.S. property without compensation

Nationalizing property within it's own sovereign territory is not reason for going to war or launching a blockade. You go to intenational tribunal or seek compensation through legal avenues.

If you think flying a jet 10 feet or whatever it is amounts to gross irresponsibility what do you think preciptating a blockade that almost led to nuclear doomsday that could have caused most of humanity on earth to perish is? All because of nationalization?

One act that might lead to two or three deaths. The other 10s of million deaths. Care to juxtapose both?

Ps. I would rather have one young punk with too much testosterone flying a jet like bat in hell than a old codger in suit trying to be a tough guy with his finger on the nuclear trigger.

That leaves Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar and Pakistan

This is not simple case of collecting alphabet soup of countries. You know San Marino, Andorra, Bahamas, Maldives, Tuvalu, Nauru. Most of the countries align because of self interest which mostly boils down to dollars. As Chinese economy rises the economic pull will start drawing more countries in. Asides China itself is nearly 20% of the world.

 

[Penguin]

What was the legal basis to this? Was that an example of "unsafe" behaviour?

Admiral Anderson, Chief of Naval Operations wrote a position paper that helped Kennedy to differentiate between what they termed a "quarantine" of offensive weapons and a blockade of all materials, claiming that a classic blockade [= an act of war] was not the original intention. Since it would take place in international waters, Kennedy obtained the approval of the OAS for military action under the hemispheric defense provisions of the Rio Treaty.
http://blogs.cfr.org/lindsay/2012/1...ntine-of-cuba-cuban-missile-crisis-day-eight/

The legal basis for the blockade action was therefor the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance a.k.a. the Rio Treaty. The use of force would be justified on the ground of support for the principals of the United Nations Charter (not on the basis of Article 51): the High Contracting Parties condemned war and undertook the obligation not to resort to the use of or the threat of force in their international relations. The repudiation of war as an instrument of national or international policy is an age-old principle of inter-American law.

A blockade action could be illegal if not supported by the OAS. Hence the necessity to obtain fourteen favorable votes in the OAS.

However, even without the support of the OAS, the US would not necessarily be acting illegally: a new situation was created by the emergence of modern (atomic & missile) weapons and it could be argued that the rules of international law predating these developments should therefor not be taken as applying literally to a completely new situation.

Treaty: http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/70681.htm
Check article 1, 3, 6 and 8

Here's a nice bit of legal background: search e.g. on the word hemispheric
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/vi...xt=flr&usg=AFQjCNGHxoLxD6z8ivxK_QhoO_I7ceRqWg

 

[gambit]

I want to stress the fact that we reserve to right to defend ourselves against intrusion.

Being in international air/sea space DOES NOT qualify as 'intrusion'. So stress THAT fact.

So who appointed you world police...

No one and everyone, including your China.

The international order is essentially anarchic in characters. Anarchy does not mean mindless violence and disorder. Anarchy really means the ABSENCE of a hierarchy. But even so, a semblance of a hierarchy inevitably formed and that structure was formed on the basis of FIELDED power. Not potential power, but actual land, sea, and air tangible power. Those who cannot match US tacitly conceded to that NATURALLY formed hierarchy. Each country, including your China, grudgingly or willingly, felled in line in that order of power.

Other than Vietnam, Philippines and Japan, we get along just fine with everyone else.

Sounds habitual to US.

 

[gambit]

I think has more to do with geopolitics and international power play than law.

Correct...

In geopolitics power play rarely takes the law into account.

Ditto...

One of the most significant flashpoints in 20th century was the Cuban Missile Crisis where for a few days the world stood at the cusp of nuclear armageddon. What was it about that which warranted a nuclear war?

A sovereign state (Cuba) agreed with another sovereign state (USSR) to base misiles on it's own territory. The said missiles would be transported through international waters by ship. At no point were those missiles to enter any go anywhere near other state's jurisdiction. Thus this matter was entirely and exclusively within referance of Cuba and Russia. Can somebody here please cite what law this "transfer" contravened? I certainly can't think of any.

Forget about 12 nm. Cuba is nearly 100 nm distant from US coast and the missiles were based in sovereign Cuban territory. Given these facts can somebody explain how was it that USA came close to starting a nuclear war?

What was the legal basis to this? Was that an example of "unsafe" behaviour?

If the Soviet-Cuba alliance remained non-nuclear regarding the presence of Soviet military means, there would have been no 'crisis'.

The word 'geopolitics' really means how geography influences foreign affairs. Even though this fact was known for thousands of yrs, supposedly, it was Napoleon who put it best, something in the line of: Know a country's geography and you will understand its foreign affairs.

Collectively, nuclear weapons is an existential threat, even if that threat is stationed on the other side of the world with geographical respect to self. But even if a threat is existential, such a threat can have varying degrees of immediacy.

For example, a well known criminal armed with a machine gun is an existential threat to me, if he lives on the next block, it will take him a longer time to get to me than it would if he lives literally next door. Distance does not negate the seriousness of the METHOD of the threat. A bullet is more assured of a kill than a stick, and we are talking about a method that can deliver multiple bullets in one second.

For a ballistic missile, 100 nm is well near literally nothing. Figuratively, it is nothing. Might as well have that machine gun poking inside my window. At that point, legalism be damned. I cannot afford to wait for the police, or in the Cuban Missile Crisis, a sort of a 'world police'. There was none in the first place. Under Fidel Castro, Cuba's geopolitics turned Cuba into a threat to the US. But Cuba did not have a machine gun but a cannon when Castro allowed the Soviet Union to station nuclear missiles on Cuba. No country would tolerate such a threat with that level of immediacy. How that country respond depends on its physical (military) prowess.

So was Cuba's behavior 'unsafe' ? In a manner of speaking: Yes.

It was 'unsafe' not in the sense of a pilot, a soldier, or a ship in danger, but in the sense that stability is threatened by a weapon that is yet to be matched in terms of destruction.

 

[1R0N_M4N_XL]

UN can sanction China only if China does not veto against Resolution to sanction itself.

I highly doubt China would let that pass.



That's Cold War legacy that is bound to be changed.



They do not ask. They like to pit one giant power against the other. Just like South America invites China to be more involved in order to check against the US. It is all about policy preferences; the US happens to have this foreign policy. It did not start in 2014. US is a major warmonger.

Few small countries like to use it.

stop twisting facts! Us allies are the reason for the asia-pivot.. again.. you're delusional.. there's no chinese military presence in latin america, so drop the B.S

philippines kicked out american bases 20 years ago, now they want america back and giving america 5 army bases because of the chinese threat..

japan/s.korea want's america to deal with north korea nuclear threat & keep china in check in east china sea.
india now want's to have defense ties with america.
vietnam was once a enemy and now vietnam prefers america over china..

So who appointed you world police for 70 countries you invaded/meddled in since your foundation? Funny how you talk about "Chinese aggression" coming from a habitual aggressor like US. Other than Vietnam, Philippines and Japan, we get along just fine with everyone else. We really don't care what your old colonial lapdogs in Asia ask of you.

you forgot to mention india, and soon the rest of south east asia are becoming anti-china as well.

we have a defense pact with our allies japan, philippines, s.korea. guam.. india, australia.
they gave us the right to be asia. china's neighbors do not want you near them, so china doesn't have the right to enter someone's territory.

if you hate americans so much, i 'm sure you will love japanese samurai nationalism more.. good luck on that.
both russia & japan will not show mercy on their enemies .

 

[gambit]

It's only "unsafe" if Chinese and Russian fighters do it but deemed "heroic" if done by US and its allies

Nonsense. Our pilots are professionals. We intercepted Russian combat aircrafts often and the Russians do not report such behaviors.

You Chinese's comments trying to downplay this close distance between aircrafts is revealing of your ignorance of flying in general. Right now, the pilots of the 81st Aerobatics Team are shaking their heads at the stupidity of whoever ordered that PLAAF pilot to do what he did. I do not know the 81st, but between professionals, I have no problem going out on a limb and say that about the 81st. Formation flying training is dangerous to start and every pilot must know how to fly in close proximity to each other.

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/formation-flying-part-ii/#.V0NunXUrLrE

Formation flying is a dangerous and, for me, compellingly beautiful and engaging experience. It requires a significant amount of discipline, dedication and practice, and should never be attempted without considerable ground and flight training.

Even more dangerous is when there are gross dissimilarities in mass/size between aircrafts. Airflow from the larger aircraft can induce disruptive airflow on to the smaller aircraft, sending it out of controlled flight. That is what happened with the Hainan Incident of April 2001 with the death of the Chinese pilot.

It was unprofessional then and it is unprofessional now.

It was stupid then and it is stupid now.

 

[gambit]

Nationalizing property within it's own sovereign territory is not reason for going to war or launching a blockade. You go to intenational tribunal or seek compensation through legal avenues.

Going thru 'legal avenues' is a way of trying to make oneself sounds more 'sophisticated' while criticizing US.

The reality is that going thru 'legal avenues' is merely a courtesy. But let us say that the US decided to seek legal resolution. What if those 'legal avenues' ruled against Cuba ? And what if Cuba refused to abide ? Who is going to take actions on US behalf ? A UN-led international team of police officers ? That warrants a hearty laugh so let me...

If you think flying a jet 10 feet or whatever it is amounts to gross irresponsibility what do you think preciptating a blockade that almost led to nuclear doomsday that could have caused most of humanity on earth to perish is? All because of nationalization?

How about NOT stationing foreign made nuclear missiles on home soil ? Were Fidel and Che that ignorant of what nuclear weapons could do ?

One act that might lead to two or three deaths. The other 10s of million deaths. Care to juxtapose both?

Hey...To a communist, millions are just statistics.

Ps. I would rather have one young punk with too much testosterone flying a jet like bat in hell than a old codger in suit trying to be a tough guy with his finger on the nuclear trigger.

But a bearded old guy with his finger on the nuclear trigger is just fine, eh ?

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Thanks. Did not know that.


Nationalizing property within it's own sovereign territory is not reason for going to war or launching a blockade. You go to intenational tribunal or seek compensation through legal avenues.

If you think flying a jet 10 feet or whatever it is amounts to gross irresponsibility what do you think preciptating a blockade that almost led to nuclear doomsday that could have caused most of humanity on earth to perish is? All because of nationalization?

One act that might lead to two or three deaths. The other 10s of million deaths. Care to juxtapose both?

Ps. I would rather have one young punk with too much testosterone flying a jet like bat in hell than a old codger in suit trying to be a tough guy with his finger on the nuclear trigger.


This is not simple case of collecting alphabet soup of countries. You know San Marino, Andorra, Bahamas, Maldives, Tuvalu, Nauru. Most of the countries align because of self interest which mostly boils down to dollars. As Chinese economy rises the economic pull will start drawing more countries in. Asides China itself is nearly 20% of the world.

England and France certainly went to war over the Suez Canal nationalization
(But under the pretense of stopping the war between Israel and Egypt).
If the value of the stuff nationalized is large enough, then war is one option.
I think authorities on International Law agree that there has to be proportion to any response.
A blockade does not seem to be unreasonable, when the nuclear missiles were discovered on Cuba.
This provided a first strike capability, and the blockade xan be seen as an act of self defense.

I don't think there were any International Tribunals in 1962 that would handle this case. Are there any today?
ICC is supposed to handle crimes vs humanity.
Would Cuba accept third party arbitration, where they surely would be forced to compensate or hand back?
I rather doubt it.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

If the Soviet-Cuba alliance

If memory serves (did history long, long time ago) this Cuba thing was counterpoint to US deployment of nuclear weapons in Turkey. Post Cuba incident US quitely reciprocated Soviet dismantling of the missiles with removal of nukes from Anatolia. Everybody came out happy and the world was saved.

For example, a well known criminal armed with a machine gun is an existential threat to me,

Very well laid argument. That was excellent exposition of reason and logic. I was merely playing devil's advocate here. I had taken a break from my jihad against two of my pet hates - mullahdom and India. This thread seemed good as any to chil out. Glad I did.

International law

Many have argued that such a thing does not exist. For there to be law you have to have some prerequisites. One of them is sanction. Without sanction you can't enforce law. Without enforcement your left just with sermons.

Going thru 'legal avenues' is a way of trying to make oneself sounds more 'sophisticated' while criticizing US.

Agreed. Disagree with your spelling though. It is "through". Just saying. Bad schooling there I suspect.

How about NOT stationing foreign

Covered this in opening paragraph.

Hey...To a communist, millions are just statistics.

A bit harsh I think. I am sort of partial to socialism (Fabianism) which is very distant relative of communism. Note. I am not a communist. I know what you Yanks think of communists - worse than devil himself.

But a bearded old guy with his finger on the nuclear trigger is just fine, eh ?

I don't like discrimination in all it's forms. Gender, sexual persuation, religion, ethnicity, disability, blah, blah but beards. Now that is altogether another matter. My ideal world would be me rich as hell, a harem on the side, a Porsche Panarama and all bearded guy's hanging from street lamps.

So, no I would not want bearded guy with finger on the trigger unless he is Santa Claus himself.

Ps. And if you don't mind me asking are you ex military? If so which branch? Thanks in advance.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Many have argued that such a thing does not exist. For there to be law you have to have some prerequisites. One of them is sanction. Without sanction you can't enforce law. Without enforcement your left just with sermons.

International Law is very different from National Laws, in that countries can decide which parts
of International Law they accept. A citizen of a country does not have that choice.

The Geneva Convention is only applicable between signees.
ISIS did not sign, so in one point of view, they are not committing crimes.
In another point of view, they are not recognized as a nation, and should be considered
Iraqis or Syrians which has signed, and thus they should be judged accordingly.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

England and France certainly went to war over the Suez Canal nationalization

Well on the face of it you can go war on any thing that takes your fancy. Hell even a poxy "ear" can do it. I am sure you have heard War of Jenkins ear.

I think authorities on International Law agree that there has to be proportion to any response.

The problem with that is what is "proportion" is subjective abstraction and laden with political influence.

A blockade does not seem to be unreasonable, when the nuclear missiles were discovered on Cuba.

Please refer to my previous post to @gambit The Cuban Missile Crisis had at it's genus Soviet concerns about US missiles deployed in Anatolia right under the distended belly of the USSR.

Ps. A word or two about subjective abstractions. I can't count number of times I have felt like strapping a suicide jacket when discussing with Islamists and they bring up this utopian Islam state with good Muslims. I never ever get anywhere with them because any examples I give of their failed projects they retort with "those are not true Muslims". I always use the analogy of white rice. If you ever washed it when do you reach the point when it's clean? You never do. Because even if you wash it 10s it still can be washed again the 11th time. It just goes on and on.

That's Islamists for you. a good Muslim is like "clean rice". You can keep killing the bad ones until there is non left. Now this is not off topic. This is gone to the moon. So see yeh boys for now.

And yeh. I have to mention this. I hate the name Richelieu because it reminds me of the good Cardinal and I suffered hours of mind bending boredom in history lessons on this bloke.

ISIS did not sign, so in one point of view, they are not committing crimes.

They are. There is concept in law called "natural justice". The Nazis had not signed to any particular international laws but many faced "natural justice".

Quote
"The principles of natural justice were derived from the Romans who believed that some legal principles were "natural" or self-evident and did not require a statutory basis."
.