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

[xunzi]

Noone is arguing that, what is on the table is unacceptable behaviour against people acting according to International Law.

Our interception is according to international law and the 50ft accusation is coming from the US's mouth.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Our interception is according to international law and the 50ft accusation is coming from the US's mouth.

It would have been a surprise if someone else had complained
China has in past behaved in an unprofessional way (Hainan incident).

Whether it is true or not, both the US and China knows.
I doubt You have any first hand knowledge.

Do You agree that a pilot that flies 50 feet from another plane on International Waters should be punished?

 

[rott]

I suppose the US is right here. It's very justified that their plane flew like halfway around the globe to someone's else backyard and then owner who comes with a stick, but US bitches about the owner being arrogant and "unsafe" interception?
Lol, you Americans needs a dose of logic training.

Even claiming that you are standing on the sidewalk and it's a public property, but looking into someone's house will definitely get you arrested.

 

[Joe Shearer]

How did China back down? Has China stop militaries any of our islet? Instead it's more of USN incompetency not able to stop the building. I dare USN to bomb the islet. But end of the day, US lack the ball to do it.

A coward try to call himself a winner?

Only one ball? Is the other in reserve for some future operation?

 

[Lure]

It would have been a surprise if someone else had complained
China has in past behaved in an unprofessional way (Hainan incident).

Whether it is true or not, both the US and China knows.
I doubt You have any first hand knowledge.

Do You agree that a pilot that flies 50 feet from another plane on International Waters should be punished?

It's not about aviation professionalism per se. Current geostrategic environment urges China to act like this. If your power is challenged, you show some muscles. Basic human instinct.

Don't worry, a Swedish plane wouldn't be harassed like this.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

I suppose the US is right here. It's very justified that their plane flew like halfway around the globe in someone's else backyard and then owner who comes with a stick, but US bitches about the owner being arrogant and "unsafe" interception?
Lol, you Americans needs a dose of logic training.

Even claiming that you are standing on the sidewalk and it's a public property, but looking into someone's house will definitely get you arrested.

Standing on a sidewalk, looking at a house 12 nm away, certainly won't get You arrested.

It's not about aviation professionalism per se. Current geostrategic environment urges China to act like this. If your power is challenged, you show some muscles. Basic human instinct.

Don't worry, a Swedish plane wouldn't be harassed like this.

You don't show power by breaking laws and international agreements.

You show power by getting Your way without reason to be criticized.
Pilots not knowing how to fly properly should lose their wings.

Swedish, and other aircraft gets harassed over international waters by Russians.

 

[Zsari]

Under U.S. law and policy, the ADIZ zone applies only to commercial aircraft intending to enter U.S. airspace.

Under US law, for any civilian aircraft intending to enter U.S. airspace, they are required to register their flight plan with FAA. However, any aircraft flying in these zones without authorization may be identified as a threat and treated as an enemy aircraft, potentially leading to interception by fighter aircraft.

Standing on a sidewalk, looking at a house 12 nm away, certainly won't get You arrested.
You don't show power by breaking laws and international agreements.

Interception is far from being arrested. If someone is looking into your house on the sidewalk with a binocular, you as the house owner can certainly walk out and confront him. Furthermore, while there are international agreement on air safety, it only applies to civil aviation. There is no international law bidding the conduct of military aircraft in an interception.

 

[1R0N_M4N_XL]

We will sanction you back so hard, Trump will give away free GM cars in Trump casinos to spur spending.

give examples:..
america/united nations sanction russia for invading ukraine, therefore russian economy fallen 30%.. ( allies will boycott russian oils)
america & russina economy aren't tied together .

now if america/United nations were to sanction china.. it will fall more than 30%. ( we can't live without oil, but the world can definitely live without cheap chinese goods).

Sure looks funny when you're enforcing a law you don't recognize yourself, but MURICA!

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

 

[Lure]

You don't show power by breaking laws and international agreements.

You show power by getting Your way without reason to be criticized.
Pilots not knowing how to fly properly should lose their wings.

Swedish, and other aircraft gets harassed over international waters by Russians.

I'm not as romantic as you are. US is a great counter example of your hypothesis. US gives abudnant reasons to be critisized. You want an example? Today every political entity in US thinks invasion of Iraq was A huge blunder. Except for maybe the Bush family. However 12 years ago 1 million Iraqi people died because of something that is now considered to be A "stupid mistake".

Compared to mistake of A pilot that endangers 2 lives in the "probable" worst case scenario versus something 1 million people died. "Actual" scenario.

Did US lose any power because of this action? Any loss of credibility? No way. US invaded Iraq unilateraly by breaking every possible international agreement, with reasons that all have been proven wrong. They did this because they simply had the means to do it and actually get away with it.

This is the new world order that is mandated by the country whose plane is harassed. China is just plang by the unwritten "rules".

 

[Penguin]

Yes! We are one step closer to war! Next time we should just shoot it down.

What is the EP-3 doing in our South China Sea ADIZ without permission anyway?

What you do mean YOUR South China Sea? What ADIZ? You don't need permission to fly in an ADIZ anyway.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Interesting discussion. I am not as educated on the subject in hand as you esteemed gentlemen. However I would like to add my Yuan's worth into the discussion. This entire debate, I think has more to do with geopolitics and international power play than law. It is simply one side flexing to push the status quo order to make space for it's own upwards trajectory.

In geopolitics power play rarely takes the law into account. 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?

@Lure Great point you raised there.

@A.P. Richelieu @gambit @rott @Zsari @Penguin

 

[rott]

Standing on a sidewalk, looking at a house 12 nm away, certainly won't get You arrested.

Okay! Lol
Whatever you say, buddy! You're right. We are wrong.

Interception is far from being arrested. If someone is looking into your house on the sidewalk with a binocular, you as the house owner can certainly walk out and confront him. Furthermore, while there are international agreement on air safety, it only applies to civil aviation. There is no international law bidding the conduct of military aircraft in an interception.

I have no clue how some people's logic work.

 

[TaiShang]

now if america/United nations were to sanction china..

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

I highly doubt China would let that pass.

name me one country who is begging chinese ships to be present in south china sea...

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

if fact all these asian countries was the ones who ask america to return to asia-pacific

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.

 

[empirefighter]

All the two sides are playing games, this happens everyday,nothing special.
If both of us want a war, we can find thousands of excuses to fight. If we donot ,we can find thousands of excuses to avoid .

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Under US law, for any civilian aircraft intending to enter U.S. airspace, they are required to register their flight plan with FAA. However, any aircraft flying in these zones without authorization may be identified as a threat and treated as an enemy aircraft, potentially leading to interception by fighter aircraft.

That is what I said...

Interception is far from being arrested. If someone is looking into your house on the sidewalk with a binocular, you as the house owner can certainly walk out and confront him. Furthermore, while there are international agreement on air safety, it only applies to civil aviation. There is no international law bidding the conduct of military aircraft in an interception.

There is a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and China that says this should not happen.

http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/141112_MemorandumOfUnderstandingRegardingRules.pdf

I'm not as romantic as you are. US is a great counter example of your hypothesis. US gives abudnant reasons to be critisized. You want an example? Today every political entity in US thinks invasion of Iraq was A huge blunder. Except for maybe the Bush family. However 12 years ago 1 million Iraqi people died because of something that is now considered to be A "stupid mistake".

Compared to mistake of A pilot that endangers 2 lives in the "probable" worst case scenario versus something 1 million people died. "Actual" scenario.

Did US lose any power because of this action? Any loss of credibility? No way. US invaded Iraq unilateraly by breaking every possible international agreement, with reasons that all have been proven wrong. They did this because they simply had the means to do it and actually get away with it.

This is the new world order that is mandated by the country whose plane is harassed. China is just plang by the unwritten "rules".

The U.S. based the invasion on Resolution 1441, so from their point of view, it is legal,
but many others including Kofi Annan disagreed.
All veto powers in the U.N. can get away with anything.
They will face political consequences, like Rusdia in Crimea.

Did US lose any power, there we disagree.

And as pointed out, there is an agreement in place between the U.S. and China.
The professional way is to terminate the agreement.
The unprofessional way is to violate it.

Interesting discussion. I am not as educated on the subject in hand as you esteemed gentlemen. However I would like to add my Yuan's worth into the discussion. This entire debate, I think has more to do with geopolitics and international power play than law. It is simply one side flexing to push the status quo order to make space for it's own upwards trajectory.

In geopolitics power play rarely takes the law into account. 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?

@Lure Great point you raised there.

@A.P. Richelieu @gambit @rott @Zsari @Penguin

A blockade is an act of war, and the fact that Cuba had nationalized
U.S. property without compensation, I believe is the legal basis.
It certainly is for the current sanctions.