+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 01/16/2018 08:28 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  2.804 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
03/12/2009 11:34 PM ID: 77573 Permalink   

US Destroyers to Escort Ships in South China Sea


In a development to a story where a US surveillance ship was harassed by Chinese patrol boats about 75 miles south of Hainan Island, the United States has decided to provide heavily armed destroyer escorts.

A day after the incident, the USS Chung-Hoon destroyer accompanied the Impeccable, an unarmed ship designed to track submarines, said a defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"Right now they are going to escort these types of ships for the foreseeable future," the official said.

    WebReporter: yreulogy Show Calling Card    
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
Remind those Chinese who are boss.

At least for another year or two when Bush's terrible executive leading will tear what's left of this nation to bits.

Even when he's out of office his idiocy can still be felt.

  by: NicPre     03/13/2009 12:18 AM     
  cue chinese navy  
rather than coordinate with china for permission to be in the area what does the US do... "hey, lets send in an even more blatantly offensive vessels"... good idea... IF your trying to piss them off.

i suppose china's message wasn't loud enough last time... i guess they just wont keep to themselves until they have a hole in their hull.

or better yet send a bunch of chinese vessels to the US's waters and loiter around US naval bases while unauthorized... i'm sure that would go over we..

and ever being told to leaven then not leaving, then being force to leaven... and come back with more military ships.... yup i'm sure that would go over well

BETTER YET... hey russia, fly within 50-70 miles of being over US land... the US bitches about them getting within 120 miles (190km) already... i wonder how they like russia getting twice as close, as thats EXACTLY what they are doing to china, i'm sure the US would LOVE that.

  by: HAVOC666     03/13/2009 01:44 AM     
I must have missed the article where we flew within 70 miles of China in the first place.

Oh yeah, they assaulted and threatened a U.S. vessel, and WE'RE THE BAD GUYS FOR PROTECTING OUR PEOPLE?

Come on Havoc.
  by: NicPre     03/13/2009 02:02 AM     
  Lol @ HAV  
The incident happened in International waters. This did not happen in China's territorial waters. The chinese boats went over 50 miles into international waters to harass the sub tracker.
  by: Synister1   03/13/2009 02:02 AM     
  RE: Synister1  
You are correct that the initial incident did not occur in Chinese territorial waters, nor is China suggesting this was in territorial waters.

The USNS Impeccable was harassed 75 miles off the coast of Hainan. Not too sure how many of you are aware but that is well within the Economic Exclusion Zone. International waters does not start until 200 nautical miles off the low tide baseline off the coast of all countries (this is based off the Charter UNCLOS III signed in 1974 of which the USA has signed). I have no idea where you are getting the idea that the USNS vessel was 50 miles in international waters.
  by: yreulogy   03/13/2009 02:17 AM     
  @nicpre & synister  
"I must have missed the article where we flew within 70 miles of China in the first place."

with boats... please tell me that was a smartass remark.

"Oh yeah, they assaulted and threatened a U.S. vessel, and WE'RE THE BAD GUYS FOR PROTECTING OUR PEOPLE?"

they lucky they weren't fire on... they aren't in their waters... and they are refusing to leave when asked and they know they're unwelcome. hence they're lucky they weren't fired upon.

china has small islands (islets) that they hold claim to which makes those water their... the US doesn't recognize those islets and hence nor the waters... thats like the rest of the world ignoring hawaii as part of the US and putting their ships around hawaii without authorization... that too would give the US authority to fire upon them similiarly...

this is jus tthe US doing what it would consider of other nations to be an act of aggression.

if i were the chinese i'd fire a warning shot 10 feet of the deck, just close enough to scare the shit of of them, and the next shot wouldn't be a warning... the US sure loves tempting fate.

what would happen if a russian bomber on a mock run didn't leave when asked too... thats why interceptors are armed... just incase a foreign power or invader refuses to leave.

and protecting what people... the peopel that are authorized to be in the area and refused to coordinate their efforts... which wouldn't have been a problem if they were just mapping the ocean floor... thats the kind of things country's coordinate their efforts on... most countries dont take kindly to being spied on.... esspecialliy so blatantly.

and yes bringing your military into to someone else's claimed land (or waters as the case is) DOES make you the bad guy... even if the intention weren't malicious its obviously going to look like an act of aggression even if it wasn't.

"The chinese boats went over 50 miles into international waters to harass the sub tracker."

from the chinese government:
'We demand the United States respect our legal interests and security concerns, and take effective measures to prevent a recurrence of such incidents.'

a few hours later the US announces they are sending in a destroyer with the ship now... how else do they expect china to respond other than with military ships of their own.

this is for both of you since you both dont seem to know what the USS immpeccable is or does other than a "research vessel":

"The Impeccable's surveillance mission is focused mainly on undersea warfare. This may be of a particular interest to the Chinese government, as they operate an estimated 62 submarines, most of which are diesel electric powered, with a major submarine base on Hainan."

hardly something any country would take kindly to, and is in an of itself considerable as an act of aggression.

they weren't there doing innocent research as you two seem to be under the impression of... nor did the chinese harrassed them for no reason they were given a warning a day in advance to leave... that simply wasn't reported in the source:

"On March 7, a Chinese intelligence collection ship contacted the Impeccable over bridge-to-bridge radio, calling her operations illegal and directing Impeccable to leave the area or "suffer the consequences.""

another incident of the chinese warning the USS immpeccable:

"On March 5, 2009, a Chinese frigate approached Impeccable, crossing its bow at a range of approximately 100 yards. This was followed less than two hours later by a Chinese Y-12 aircraft, conducting 11 flyovers of Impeccable at an altitude of 600 feet (180 m) and a range from 100–300 feet (30–90 m). The frigate then crossed Impeccable's bow again, this time at a range of approximately 400–500 yards, without notifying Impeccable its intentions"

the incident happened on march 8th.

so like i said before... they are lucky they weren't fired upon. they had no less than 3 days of warning and refused to leave... thats about 71 hours longer than i would have waited without firing a warning shot directly over their bow, and about 70 hours longer than i would have waited before i was done with warnings.

harassment? on the contrary the chinese have shown impeccable (pardon the pun) restraint.

we don't say US/canadian inceptor harrass Russian training planes in their mock bombing runs do we... of course not... but thats how they are construing this act... as harassment rather than an interception of an unauthorized foreign vessel who's mission plan consists of spying on china for the purposes of undersea warfare.. if i were china i'd not tolerate that either.
  by: HAVOC666     03/13/2009 02:52 AM     
because USA is not recognising it now, like always if there is an accident or some emergency in the area then it would be consider China's territory and china would be expected deal/pay for it but since the USA wants something there they are saying the Hainan Island is not part of China even though it is.

USA is just being a Bully trying to invade other nations territories again. I hope China blows up any further US vessal making Incurrsion into Chinese territory. they should have blown up the last one that refused to leave and had to be harrased to leave waters it had no right to be in.
  by: veya_victaous     03/13/2009 03:16 AM     
I'm actually more concerned with the economic fallout this incident is going cause. As two permanent members of the UN security council, it is unlikely things will escalate to war with the threat of mutual annihilation hanging over their heads.

What is most likely going to happen is that if there is not a quick resolution to this mess (and most likely China will demand a formal apology for the incursion) China's newfound economic muscle will be flexed at the most disatrous time for the US. Hillary Clinton's visit to convince China to continue purchasing US treasuries may have all been for nothing.

Currently the scenarios are:
If China halts treasury purchases: US economy and USD will drop significantly.
If China begins liquidating its existing treasury positions: US credit market freezes overnight. US government defaults on its national debt. USD crumbles to the value of the peso overnight.
  by: yreulogy   03/13/2009 04:14 AM     
  Consequences Pt 2  
well that didn't take long.

To my knowledge, this is the first time China has publicly acknowledged the default risks in US treasuries
  by: yreulogy   03/13/2009 06:26 AM     
I really do hope China retaliates in the form of increased navy presence.

The US has no business to be this area.
  by: vant   03/13/2009 10:21 AM     
  My comment  
This was in international waters.
To those of you who say the US has no right to be here, say's who?

The ship was a unarmed ship, minding their own business. China cones around, flying above, being immature, messing around for no reason.

Well now the US is not playing any games and sending a large warship along to "watch over" the unarmed ship,it is not a big deal and it's something any country would do if there ship was harassed for no reason.
  by: Motorcyclejim   03/13/2009 10:38 AM     
  The wikipedia site  
Has more information on the ship and some thing's that China did, including preventing the ship from leaving and throwing a grappling hook in effort to hook the sonar array.

It does not say anywhere that the ship was doing anything with under-sea warfare, it's conducting ocean survey's, anything else has been word of mouth and people's opinion.

I would "link-up" the wikipedia but I am new here and do not know the rule's on linking to other website's.
  by: Motorcyclejim   03/13/2009 10:53 AM     
  RE: Motorcyclejim  
Before you take the US navy's word for it claiming international waters immunity please refer to my previous comments on what constitutes, as defined by the UN, as international waters.
  by: yreulogy   03/13/2009 12:52 PM     
You are aware that the Impeccable is used for sub hunting?
Wikipedia also states that.
And it was not in international waters it was in China's Economic Exclusive Zone. Which extends 200 nautical miles from the baseline of the coast.
As for your comment about it does not say anywhere it was doing under sea warfare.
What were those sonars doing in the water?
"IMPECCABLE was specifically designed to deploy two underwater listening devices called surveillance towed-array sensor system (SURTASS) used to augment the Navy's antisubmarine warfare capability. The SURTASS mission is to gather ocean acoustical data and, through electronic equipment onboard, process and provide rapid transmission of antisubmarine warfare information via satellite to shore stations for evaluation and analysis."
That quote was taken from
So much for word and mouth, if you can get facts to back your argument, I would love to hear it.
  by: thinking   03/13/2009 12:53 PM     
  Interesting side note  
the USS Chung-Hoon was named after Rear Admiral Gordon Pai'ea Chung-Hoon. A Chinese/American. I wonder if the navy had some strategy in choosing that ship.
  by: VermiciousG     03/13/2009 03:42 PM     
  It is a simple situation.  
China wants to unilaterally extend their sovereignty into international waters and the United States wants to keep the line static for everyone. If the Allies had kicked Hitler out of the Ruhr when they could, World War II may have been avoided.
  by: walter3ca   03/13/2009 11:21 PM     
this sounds like the start of vietnam
  by: spun47x   03/14/2009 12:19 AM     
"It does not say anywhere that the ship was doing anything with under-sea warfare, it's conducting ocean survey's, anything else has been word of mouth and people's opinion."

i was going to say read more carefully but saw someone removed that information after i posted the reference to it.

if you search google for "USS impeccable wiki undersea warfare" (without the quote marks) you get w old wiki entry under the link that clearly says "The Impeccable's surveillance mission is focused mainly on undersea warfare".

this is the cached page before someone removed that:
  by: HAVOC666     03/14/2009 12:35 AM     
  Nice catch Havoc!  
  by: VermiciousG     03/14/2009 12:43 AM     
I can't believe I see some of these comments regarding the U.S. naval presence in East Asia.

Does anyone honestly want Chinese subs crawling off their coasts without any notice of it? The U.S. is doing the World a favor twice if the vessel is doing anymore than Oceanic research!

Perhaps when they pop up off of Europe's coastline the attitude will be different.
  by: Big Bird     03/14/2009 04:04 AM     
  @big bird  
"I can't believe I see some of these comments regarding the U.S. naval presence in East Asia."

why?, they shouldn't have been where they were.

"Does anyone honestly want Chinese subs crawling off their coasts without any notice of it?"

this was on THEIR COASTS.

"The U.S. is doing the World a favor twice if the vessel is doing anymore than Oceanic research!"

like hell they are... they are what they usually do... whatever why want, because they think they bullies of the world... the US is doing no-one any favor by being even more aggressive.

like i said before... they deserve to be shot at if they continue their presence where they shouldn't be.

"Perhaps when they pop up off of Europe's coastline the attitude will be different."

chinese subs/ships didn't invade someone else's water the US did...

the US was clearly in the wrong was called on it and still continues this time with armed military presence.. are they trying to get shot at?

how about china parks are "research" ship in the US waters with an armed escort ... how would you like that?... better yet how would you expect your country to respond... then whatever that is.. expect no less from china.
  by: HAVOC666     03/14/2009 05:25 AM     
It is not a personal attack when I call you a case that contains nuts, despite the moderation staff here favoring your kind of nut container to mine.

Yes, you are. And you rant consistently demonstrates you lost whatever marbles you had a long, long time ago. Except for discussion of the classification of the planet Pluto for no reason I can conceive of whatever.

Did you used to be an amatuer or professional astronomer before you cracked? Honestly.
  by: Big Bird     03/14/2009 06:11 AM     
  Note to all  
The level of hypocrisy in this thread is absolutely astounding. If the rest of the world doesn't want Chinese subs crawling off their coasts why then is it ok for the US to have heavily armed naval vessels off the Chinese coast?

Apart from my personal feelings about this, it would be far more productive if the people discussing this thread showed some journalistic professionalism and actually research some international maritime laws rather than go off complete hearsay.

Here are the facts as they stand.

The Impeccable and the Chung-Hoon were in an area 75 miles off the coast of Hainan Island.

In relation to the use of ocean rights, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I - III 1973-1982) was specifically set up to define the rights and responsibilities in the usage of the world's oceans. As of this date 152 nations have ratified UNCLOS. China has ratified it, the US refuse to ratify UNCLOS on the provisions of Part XI which relate to the seabed, ocean floor and subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. The US argued that, Part XI which acknowledges mineral resources in areas of the sea beyond national jurisdictions:

"be carried out for the benefit of mankind as a whole, irrespective of the geographical location of States, whether coastal or land-locked, and taking into particular consideration the interests and needs of developing States and of peoples who have not attained full independence or other self-governing status recognized by the United Nations in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and other relevant General Assembly resolutions" - UNCLOS Part XI Section 3 Article 140 'Benefit of mankind'

is unacceptable to the US as it is unfavourable to US economic and security interests.

While the US have refused to ratify due to Part XI they have expressed agreement with the rest of UNCLOS.

this includes:

N.B. Part V of UNCLOS refers specifically to the "EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE"

"The exclusive economic zone shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured." - UNCLOS Part V Article 57 'Breadth of the exclusive economic zone'

"1. In the exclusive economic zone, all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject to the relevant provisions of this Convention, the freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this Convention.
3. In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, States shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part." - UNCLOS Part V Article 58 'Rights and duties of other States in the exclusive economic zone'

"1. The coastal State may, in the exercise of its sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living resources in the exclusive economic zone, take such measures, including boarding, inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this Convention." - UNCLOS Part V Article 73 'Enforcement of laws and regulations of the coastal State'

As of date there is no other widely recognised international legislation concerning the use of the sea.

Under this convention I simply am unable to see how the US is claiming to be in international waters. If somebody has any factually and/or legally supported arguments against, I'd be happy to listen. Spouting off hearsay will only highlight your immaturity, prejudice or paranoia.
  by: yreulogy   03/14/2009 06:17 AM     
  Just for the record  
I didn't say one way or t'other
  by: VermiciousG     03/14/2009 06:36 AM     
  @big bird  
"And you rant consistently demonstrates you lost whatever marbles you had a long, long time ago."

i didn't lose my marbles...

"Did you used to be an amatuer or professional astronomer before you cracked? Honestly."

nope, never really had more than a passing intrest, just a general intrest in science.
  by: HAVOC666     03/14/2009 01:53 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: