Fellow Americans what do you think.....

[Toad]

Well, to use the "rabid dog" analogy, you call the local Animal Control office and they come pick it up and kill it.  

Say, Dowding, old Chum, get on the line to the UN's Rabid Superpower office and have them drop round to Peking, will you?  

Never works that way, though does it? The rouges seem to run on uninterrupted until they finally slaughter enough people and people notice.

I posted what I would do in another thread. I'd just walk away from this "rabid dog" and let him starve to death on his own. Might take a while, but I'm a patient man.  

[Eagler]

 

Originally posted by Toad:
Well, to use the "rabid dog" analogy, you call the local Animal Control office and they come pick it up and kill it.    

Say, Dowding, old Chum, get on the line to the UN's Rabid Superpower office and have them drop round to Peking, will you?  

Never works that way, though does it? The rouges seem to run on uninterrupted until they finally slaughter enough people and people notice.

I posted what I would do in another thread. I'd just walk away from this "rabid dog" and let him starve to death on his own. Might take a while, but I'm a patient man.  

If the "rabid dog" had one of mine cornered, I'd blow it's brains out and not think twice about it

Eagler

[Toad]

MrSid, I have no idea where you are from but I suspect the laws are different here.   That's besides the point, however.

The agreements on what constitutes legitimate "Reconnaissance" and "Intelligence Gathering" are different than Civil Law in a particular nation.

If (in your country) you form a great rock band and you work on your new songs in your back yard, playing very, very loud is it illegal for your neighbor to turn on a tape recorder and record your song? He then listens to it in his own home, for his own purposes, is this illegal?

That's the sort of thing a recon platform is designed to pick up. If someone is broadcasting a signal, it can be picked up a long ways away. Like, far away, in International airspace.  

The one thing you need to remember is that ALL the "powers" engage in Intelligence Gathering. They all do it thus they all pretty much have to allow it.

Example: Nation X routinely flies 20 miles off the coast of Nations Y & Z with unarmed recon planes. Nation X feels this is a vital and legitimate part of their national security.

However, Nation X immediately engages and shoots down all Nation Y & Z aircraft that fly within 20 miles of their coastline.

See how long this would last? See what the end result of such a policy is?

Recon has been going on a long time without many problems. The "new boys" in the game screwed up and don't want to admit it. But they DID screw up. It is the inteceptor's responsiblity to maintain separation. Period. Done deal.

I don't know if these analogies help. But a recon platform is simply a passive receiver. You don't want to be heard and recorded? Don't emit.

The Russians were pretty good at shutting down when we got close btw.  

[Toad]

Originally posted by Dowding:
Toad, did you read the first paragraph of my reply?

Yes, I read it. Have you read what I've posted in this and other threads?


Perhaps that was not a good analogy, but it is close. The intent was to point out that you and only you control what an intelligence gathering platform can find out about you. It's YOU that don't understand intelligence gathering, Dowding.

"Spy plane" is just so much inflammatory rhetoric. That type aircraft is basically a large array of antennae all coupled to recording devices. "Spy" connotes an illegal or disreputable activity, you know it and that's why you use it. It is incorrect terminology.

If you emit (radiate) you essentially have little or no control over where the signal goes. Particularly when one considers "skip". They say our TV shows are being broadcast to the entire Galaxy, correct? (We better hope no one is watching!   (Image removed from quote.) )

You are absolutely correct in one thing. Nothing that you broadcast is truly "secure". If someone has the right antenna in the right position, your transmission can be captured and deciphered later. That is the whole basis of intelligence gathering, by land, sea and air.

And there's not one thing illegal about it. All "powers" do it. As long as you do it from International Airspace, Seaspace or your own space. Oh, yes, Dowding, there are "listening posts" in the US that monitor broadcast overseas transmissions. But you knew that, right?

It you emit it and someone is interested, it will be recorded. Bank on it. It's not illegal, either. Why do you think encryption exists, for pete's sake? Why do you think entire agencies exist to DECRYPT signals?

"I wonder that if China did the same thing and flew recon. planes 12 miles from New York, you'd say they were entitled to? Wouldn't they be intercepted before they got within 200 miles?"

Of course. I've already said this here or in other threads. There's nothing illegal about intelligence gathering in international airspace.

HOWEVER, if a US interceptor had a mid-air with the recon platform, it would be the fault of the interceptor; they are responsible for maintaining separation.

"During the 80's, Russian Bears would frequently fly over the North Sea/Atlantic around Britain."

Again, check my other posts. Those same Bears came through the GIUK gap, down the East Coast of the USA and deployed to Cuba. Then they returned home the same way. Nothing illegal, no protests from the US and NO MID-AIRS.

"I wonder how often this game plays out over there and we just don't hear about it.

I played this game from 1975 to 1980 in an RC-135, Dowding. I think I know how it was played.

It happens routinely ALL AROUND THE WORLD. What doesn't happen routinely is that the intecepting pilot FAILS HIS FORMATION CHECKRIDE.

China are in the wrong, but you've got to give them a way to back down,

They can back down simply and gracefully by releasing the crew and the aircraft.

Why isn't the whole world pointing this out to them, eh?

Instead its "Bush this, Bush that, Bush is elevating tensions."

BS.

He's been MORE than patient and diplomatic.

Go rag on the Chinese a bit. THEY are the problem, not us.


[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 04-05-2001).]

[Udie]

 Well I'm doing my part!!  I am now, as well as a few from my office, officialy boycotting anything remotely related to china.  No more chinese buffets, no more cheap toejam.  

 The more I think about it the more I realize this is the right way to handle this.  Stop trading with them period.  Here in Texas we have a large 3rd world nation just to our south.  I'm sure they would love to pick up the slack. Why we do business with communist is beyond my knowledge, I just don't understand why we have cowtowed to these people for so long.  We should all say screw em!

 I bet if you went over there and asked the averaged china man who the AVG was he wouldn't be able to tell you.  And after you told him who they were and what they did he'd probobly call you a liar!


Udie

[Eagler]

Udie

just like Tom Clancy's latest eh? It was America's boycott, in the book, that pushed China to attack Russia to avoid economic starvation.

Eagler

[Dowding]

Firstly, there are now about three threads on this subject - I don't have much time online these days, so it's hard to keep track.  

"Spy plane" is just so much inflammatory rhetoric.

"Spy" connotes an illegal or disreputable activity, you know it and that's why you use it. It is incorrect terminology.

I don't use the term 'Spy Plane' to be inflammatory.

Listening to radio and mobile phone transmissions (with the target unaware) is an act of deception, and you know it. Whatever the virtues of doing it may be. Perhaps the term 'spy' is not truly accurate, but these reconnaisance planes do have an element of espionage.

If you emit (radiate) you essentially have little or no control over where the signal goes.

Yeah, thanks. Having a Masters in Applied Physics specialising semi-conductors might just have educated me in basic EM physics.  

The crux of this matter is that you are expecting straight talking and logic to be acceptable to China and a suitable way of sorting this mess out. Sadly it isn't. That's why we have the exceedingly dirty game of diplomacy.

Bush is naive if he thinks China will respond to calm reasoning. This is not Europe or some tin-pot dictatorship. This is a country with a tradition of 'face', a country in which children are tought from an early age about the 'humiliation' of China brought about by the evil capitalist Western democracies. This is a country with the worst human rights record anywhere on the face of the planet. They need to handled like grenade with a faulty fuse - with care and consideration.

Sure, they don't deserve it, but this is the real world - a real world solution is what is needed.

I played this game from 1975 to 1980 in an RC-135, Dowding. I think I know how it was played.

Like I ever said that you didn't.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Dowding:
Listening to radio and mobile phone transmissions (with the target unaware) is an act of deception, and you know it. Whatever the virtues of doing it may be. Perhaps the term 'spy' is not truly accurate, but these reconnaisance planes do have an element of espionage.

HorsePuckey. The "target" is completely aware; there's no surprises in international intelligence gathering with multi-engine aircraft.

The Intelligence Gathering Aircraft file ICAO flight plans that show their route to and from what is called the "sensitive area". These flight plans have times and coordinates.

The countries in the areas of interest know they are coming, it's that simple. The Russians used to shut down their transmitters just as we came into range. They just don't know the range capabilities exactly.   (Image removed from quote.)

In short, there's no subterfuge. The flight plans are filed days in advance.

Bush is naive if he thinks China will respond to calm reasoning.

You'd love it if he proposed military action, wouldn't you? Boy, it'd be the US-bashers high tide and green grass!   (Image removed from quote.) Sorry, he won't.

But you think we should kiss their butt so THEY can save face right?

They need to handled like grenade with a faulty fuse

Yes, I agree. The way I'd treat a grenade like that is to get as far away as possible and have nothing to do with it.

I hope that's EXACTLY what the US does. It may take us years to unentangle ourselves but that would be my plan. Whatever we get from China, I'm sure other nations would be willing to supply, over time.

Now if you want to hang around and apologize to the grenade, tell it that it's all your fault it has a bad fuse and is psychotic...go ahead.  (Image removed from quote.)

[Dowding]

The alternative to calm reasoning isn't military action, it's behind-the-scenes away-from-the-media diplomacy. It's how international relations really work.

Who said the US should apologise? Certainly not me.

Why did the Bush electoral campaign include the 'original' concept of treating China as a competitor rather than a 'strategic partner'? Jesus, anyone with half a brain can see the former has always been true compared to the latter, so what was the point of going public with it? The US and China are like chalk and cheese. And before you start blaming everything on Clinton, consider that I'm talking long-term here, i.e. since the 50's.  

Start putting restrictions on trade with China, by all means. I dislike immensely the Chinese Communist regime. The only good thing the UK has got out of it is that our arms companies have sold loads of torture devices (such as electric shock batons to analy rape dissident men and women). Nice.

I'm all for financial isolation, but remember that it is American big business who have lobbied hard over recent decades to be allowed to open up Chinese markets. Business wants the trade, and I bet several of the big companies were involved in funding Bush's election campaign. It will be interesting to see how easy he finds it to extricate the US from financial involvement with China.

[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 04-06-2001).]

[Fatty]

Bright side of all this is it may finally get our public motivated enough to demand we cut them off.  I don't know what they hope to accomplish, but they're woefully close to that now, there are several bills being writtin up presently to cut back on our mutual trade.

[Toad]

CC, Fatty.

I have begun the process of E-Mailing all the members of Congress and sharing my views on distancing ourselves from the Chinese over the next two decades.

May not amount to much, but at least I feel better.  

[Mk10 225th]

Y'know, as a bleeding-heart, knee-jerk liberal cry-baby, I really am rather surprised at the mature way the Bush administration is handling this whole crisis.

I'll have to say that I think they are showing a lot of patience and intelligence in dealing with this matter, and are probably making some decent brownie points with not only the rest of the world, but actually, with China too.

I never thought I'd say that without it being a snide, caustic remark, but I'll have to say the 'ol frat rat is doing a lot better than I ever thought he would.

Thank God for cool heads, and calm thinking.  

Also the admiral's news conference yesterday, the whole thing about stressing future relations and how important that is to the US, and the continuing dialogue about a military exchange program are exactly the kinds of things that can not only resolve this situation, but make the New Kid on the Block China realize that we're a hell of a lot more fun to have as a friend than an enemy.

All in all, even from the Leftist point of view, so far, these guys ain't doin' too bad.

And I'm a big enough man to admit it.

Mk

[Toad]

<S> Mk.

You don't often see that on these boards.    

[leonid]

 

Originally posted by Dowding:
The alternative to calm reasoning isn't military action, it's behind-the-scenes away-from-the-media diplomacy. It's how international relations really work.

Who said the US should apologise? Certainly not me.

Why did the Bush electoral campaign include the 'original' concept of treating China as a competitor rather than a 'strategic partner'? Jesus, anyone with half a brain can see the former has always been true compared to the latter, so what was the point of going public with it? The US and China are like chalk and cheese. And before you start blaming everything on Clinton, consider that I'm talking long-term here, i.e. since the 50's.  

Start putting restrictions on trade with China, by all means. I dislike immensely the Chinese Communist regime. The only good thing the UK has got out of it is that our arms companies have sold loads of torture devices (such as electric shock batons to analy rape dissident men and women). Nice.

I'm all for financial isolation, but remember that it is American big business who have lobbied hard over recent decades to be allowed to open up Chinese markets. Business wants the trade, and I bet several of the big companies were involved in funding Bush's election campaign. It will be interesting to see how easy he finds it to extricate the US from financial involvement with China.

[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 04-06-2001).]

Good points, Dowding.  One thing that always bugged me with Clinton was how he viewed everything in economic terms.  Tried to help Russia by shoving our version of a market economy down their throat when they had little to no infrastructure for such an endeavor.  China was better at the economic swing due to the use of Hong Kong contractors, but in either case there was no political hooks.  Nixon may have been a crook, but he had it right: offer Russia a blank check, but only on condition that a stable democracy is built.  Instead, we tried to force Russia to abide by the laws of the world market even if it meant curtailing a freer society.  In China's case, we never should have opened business contracts with them.

Free enterprise and democracy are not the same thing.