Chinese step up activity

[Walsingham]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7933171.stm

 

The ships had "aggressively manoeuvred" around the USNS Impeccable "in an apparent co-ordinated effort to harass the US ocean surveillance ship while it was conducting routine operations in international waters", a Pentagon statement said.

 

The US ship sprayed the Chinese vessel with water from fire hoses to try to force it away, according to US officials.

But they said the Chinese crew stripped to their underwear and carried on approaching to within 25ft (8m).

 

No immediate response from the Chinese government was reported.

 

My emphasis.

Edited March 9, 2009 by Walsingham

[Morgoth]

These may be the first signs leading to WW3.

[Hurlshort]

I guess the stereotype doesn't just apply to American sailors...

[Gorgon]

One of my dad's friends was arrested, kinda last minute, for shooting at the USS Reagan with a BB gun. Apparently they were arguing whether or not to return fire when the harbor police showed up.

 

True story. He got laid a lot that year for his efforts.

[Gorgon]

I imagine this is the same kinda deal, more a test of manhood than a deliberate provocation from the government, who likes to spin nationalist and anti American rhetoric, but doesn't like it when things get out of control.

[Walsingham]

Cool story. But I don't think Red China has such an easy-going attitude to random outbursts of fervour. Unless you include running people over as easy-going. I suppose it is if you are in a tank.

 

EDIT: this from CNN

 

The Pentagon cited three previous instances of what it described as harassment, the first of which occurred Wednesday, when a Chinese Bureau of Fisheries Patrol vessel used a spotlight to illuminate the the ocean surveillance ship USNS Victorious.

 

In the incident, which occurred about 125 miles from China's coast in the Yellow Sea, the Chinese ship "crossed Victorious' bow at a range of about 1,400 yards" in darkness without notice or warning. The following day, a Chinese Y-12 maritime surveillance aircraft conducted 12 fly-bys of Victorious at an altitude of about 400 feet and a range of 500 yards.

 

The next day, a Chinese frigate approached Impeccable "and proceeded to cross its bow at a range of approximately 100 yards," which was followed less than two hours later by a Chinese Y-12 aircraft conducting 11 fly-bys of Impeccable at an altitude of 600 feet and a range of 100 to 300 feet, the statement said.

 

"The frigate then crossed Impeccable's bow yet again, this time at a range of approximately 400-500 yards without rendering courtesy or notice of her intentions."

 

And on Saturday, a Chinese intelligence collection ship challenged Impeccable over bridge-to-bridge radio, "calling her operations illegal and directing Impeccable to leave the area or 'suffer the consequences,' " the statement said.

Edited March 9, 2009 by Walsingham

[Calax]

sounds like the chinese are rattling their sabers and trying to show who's the big dog in the seas. Of course this will only work as long as US military ships aren't within spitting distance of the chinese vessels because neither country could afford a war.

[Walsingham]

sounds like the chinese are rattling their sabers and trying to show who's the big dog in the seas. Of course this will only work as long as US military ships aren't within spitting distance of the chinese vessels because neither country could afford a war.

 

I deduce from this that you can't spit 25m?

[Calax]

sounds like the chinese are rattling their sabers and trying to show who's the big dog in the seas. Of course this will only work as long as US military ships aren't within spitting distance of the chinese vessels because neither country could afford a war.

 

I deduce from this that you can't spit 25m?

hyperbole is my favorite tactic :D

 

in terms of navy I think having a carrier group within the general area would discourage adventurism by the chinese.

[Gorth]

The article didn't mention anything about which part of the chinese coast the ship was spying on. They could return the favour and send chinese navy vessels withinn 125 miles of the US coast for a bit of snooping and see if the favour was returned

[Killian Kalthorne]

Or this could be some harmless fun on the part of the Chinese crews independent of their government. In any case, get an Aegis cruiser in the area to lock weapons, not necessarily fire weapons, at these Chinese bouts and set the course of the other ship to ramming speed toward them may get them to back off.

[Walsingham]

Or this could be some harmless fun on the part of the Chinese crews independent of their government. In any case, get an Aegis cruiser in the area to lock weapons, not necessarily fire weapons, at these Chinese bouts and set the course of the other ship to ramming speed toward them may get them to back off.

And on Saturday, a Chinese intelligence collection ship challenged Impeccable over bridge-to-bridge radio, "calling her operations illegal and directing Impeccable to leave the area or 'suffer the consequences,' " the statement said.

 

If that's what you consider harmless fun then I think I just worked out why they threw you out of the navy.

[Trenitay]

I like how the Chinese government is denying the whole thing.

[Walsingham]

It stikes me that China has more to lose by playing teh fol than the US has. China desperately needs US investment at a time when there is none going. Obama doesn't need to send any gunboats, just turn off the cash.

 

On the other hand it occurs to me that recent pronouncements within China calling for a retrograde repeal of freedoms may be them battening the hatches to weather an economic storm. Feed the army and let the civilians starve etc.

[Darth InSidious]

Can Obama afford the loss of sweatshop-manufactured goods, though?

 

I'm not an economist, so I may have serially misjudged that.

[Enoch]

I actually agree with KK-- although "harmless fun" is a bit strong, I suspect that this is coming from somewhere in China's military heirarchy, and not from the central government. Unless this is an attempts to assuage internal political instability by provoking an "us against them" foreign confrontation, I don't see that they have anything to gain from this.

 

The possibility of an actual shooting war has been essentially off the table ever since China started getting rich trading with the West in the '90s. The problem for China is that their economy is now leveraged far to heavily towards making cheap products to export to the West (just as the West, particularly the U.S., is leveraged too heavily towards consumer spending). If, say, U.S. consumer spending falls from 73% of GDP down to a more sane level like 60%, lots of Chinese factories are gonna be closing (many already are), which means that the government has to find a way to employ lots of workers, or risk big problems (i.e., riots). Because the rest of their economy is so under-developed (take a look at the infrastructure outside the big coastal cities), and because their financial system is just as screwed as the rest of the world's, if not more (screwed in different ways, and the fact that there is zero public disclosure or accountability makes it easy to hide and deny, but still screwed), the Chinese government is going to be in for a very rough decade to come. Then throw in the very real possibility that the U.S. will end up monetizing its debt, dramatically decreasing the value of the T-Bills the Chinese government holds in its currency reserves, and all bets are off.

[Wrath of Dagon]

What does monetize mean in this context?

[Enoch]

What does monetize mean in this context?

Inflation. A nation monetizes its debt when it follows inflationary public policies (fiscal, monetary, or both). Since the oustanding debt is accounted for in nominal dollars, the real value of that debt declines as inflation rises. If the value of the dollar goes down to $0.50, then the national debt is effectively halved. And, for the U.S., at least, because the Dollar is the currency of choice for foreign investors and governments seeking security, a fair amount of the cost of that inflation would be borne by foreigners.

 

There are, of course, other consequences to inflation-- most notably that it tends to accelerate dramatically once a cycle of above-normal inflation is started, and the only proven way to stop said cycle of inflation is with a contraction in the real economy. (This happened most notably in the early 1980s-- double-digit inflation was squeezed out of the U.S. economy via a short but severe recession.)

Edited March 10, 2009 by Enoch

[Zoma]

It stikes me that China has more to lose by playing teh fol than the US has. China desperately needs US investment at a time when there is none going. Obama doesn't need to send any gunboats, just turn off the cash.

 

On the other hand it occurs to me that recent pronouncements within China calling for a retrograde repeal of freedoms may be them battening the hatches to weather an economic storm. Feed the army and let the civilians starve etc.

 

Actually. Its a two way thing and at the present, the US needs China more than the other way around based on the attitude of Hillary's visit to China. In order for US to pass the stimulus packadge, they need money which at the present depends much on other countries to purchase their Treasury bonds. China happends to be the largest buyer of the US Treasury bonds.

 

Of course, the reality is both nations are inter-dependent with each other at the present. I doubt anything such as WW3 would happend. Heck, otherwise it already happened years ago when the US Spy plane crashed into a Chinese jet in Chinese waters.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Zoma

[Gfted1]

Heck, otherwise it already happened years ago when the US Spy plane crashed into a Chinese jet in Chinese waters.

 

 

Wait, what? Are you referring to this story where a Chinese jet rammed our recon plane over international waters?

Edited March 10, 2009 by Gfted1

[Zoma]

Yar. My bad. Correction. Could be International waters as well. There has been conflicting info. with the US side maintaining that they were in over the international water while the Chinese claimed it was in their water.

 

Another example could be used was the accidental bombing(?) of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Regardless in short its very unlikely US and the Chinese will wage war with each other. But Russia on the other hand, I'm quite concern instead.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Zoma

[Walsingham]

So... to be glib, what you're all saying (and being interesting too, I might add) is that this is almost the Cold War. but this time we face economic armageddon? Because if so I'd say that still leaves room for plenty of Cold War brinksmanship. You push as hard as you can by making concessions appear small and then parlaying them up.

 

This incident seems to me to revolve around testing Obama's resolve over Taiwan. He's wussing out with the Russians over Georgia and Eastern Europe. China - to me - seems to be risking their hand while the going is good.

[Enoch]

I don't see it as a Cold War brinksmanship situation. China needs the West (as a market for its goods) far far more than the West needs China. Most of the goods China is exporting aren't necessities to consumers, and there are alternate sources of relatively cheap labor (i.e., every other poor country) that we could transition to. A disruption of trade would increase some costs in the West, but it would be absolutely catastrophic to the Chinese.

[Rostere]

I don't see it as a Cold War brinksmanship situation. China needs the West (as a market for its goods) far far more than the West needs China. Most of the goods China is exporting aren't necessities to consumers, and there are alternate sources of relatively cheap labor (i.e., every other poor country) that we could transition to. A disruption of trade would increase some costs in the West, but it would be absolutely catastrophic to the Chinese.

 

Still, there's a reason why we trade with China and not "any other poor nation". It's all got to do with economy. If there was a better deal elsewhere, you'd trade more with "any other poor nation". Still assuming the reason we trade with China is based on rationality, the trade exchange is a mutual relationship where both parts are equally dependent upon each other. China's dollar reserve is an example of this. China has a national reserve of about two trillion dollars and the US has a national debt of 11 trillion dollars. From these numbers, it would not seem that China should be the exporting nation. And yet they are, and they also do everything in their power to sell as much as they can to the US.

 

If China stops selling (and stops buying US debt and storing US dollars), the US will get increasingly hard to get both imported goods and raw materials. If the US stops buying and investing in China, China's money supply will be stifled. Either way, both lose. It is silly how people today look at the US and China as potential enemies. Of course they both definitely have the means to hurt each other, but a conflict would be futile and it wouldn't benefit anyone. In the end though, I think it all boils down to whether the rest of the world continues to trust the dollar or not, because neither China nor the US would change the current status quo.

[Killian Kalthorne]

So... to be glib, what you're all saying (and being interesting too, I might add) is that this is almost the Cold War. but this time we face economic armageddon? Because if so I'd say that still leaves room for plenty of Cold War brinksmanship. You push as hard as you can by making concessions appear small and then parlaying them up.

 

This incident seems to me to revolve around testing Obama's resolve over Taiwan. He's wussing out with the Russians over Georgia and Eastern Europe. China - to me - seems to be risking their hand while the going is good.

 

Well, we already have one Georgia. We do need to learn to share. We can't keep all the Georgias for ourselves. Hmmm... I wonder if Putin wouldn't mind swapping Georgias.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Killian Kalthorne