At 13:41 02/04/01 +0000, you wrote:
>I don't get the title of this thread. It's not like the US and China are
>inches away from
>a "hot" war the way the US and the USSR were for decades. And even then,
>there were lots
>of similar incidents between them that didn't start the nukes flying...
Well that was what was so remarkable about the way the news was broken on
Sunday morning. A slight stumble between friends on a weekend spin side by
side over the South China seas, was the studiedly casual message.
It's getting hotter now. Bush is spluttering that he is "troubled". He
warns against the Chinese "tampering" with the plane. Code for dissambling
it minutely bit by bit. No doubt even more important to him than
humanitarian welfare for the lives of the 24 crew. Meanwhile Chinese
internet chat rooms are condemning the obvious arrogance of the US side in
their lack of concern for the Chinese crewman.
It is funny to hear the US government spokesperson coming out with a
standard answer when he simply does not know: " we will give you more
information about that when we have it", however bellicose the questions.
>Two Chinese military planes were following the U.S. plane to monitor it.
>The Chinese planes, Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhu Bangzo said in a
>statement Sunday, "were flying normally" about 60 miles southeast of
>Hainan Island, when "the U.S. plane suddenly turned toward the Chinese
>plane. The head and the left wing of the U.S. plane bumped into one of the
>Chinese planes, causing it to crash."
Other reports make it clear that "normal" flying over or near Chinese
territorial space has got more and more intimate in recent months.
What is the macho Bush administration to do? What would have happened two
decades ago is that they would have sent an aircraft carrier to the region,
promised intensified air monitoring, and threatened retaliation if any
monitors were intercepted. Cf Iraq now. Well already there are coded
messages that the departure of 3 destroyers from the area for home base has
been delayed.
What options does the US really have? Time is now on the Chinese side.
World ridicule is on the Chinese side.
Indeed what is the purpose of expelling 50 Soviet spies from the US if a
couple of weeks later you land a top spy plane on Chinese territory and
pointedly ask that it should not be "tampered" with.
The Chinese are very proud. Their judgements are complex and slow. It is
likely they will extend the mental torture of the US regime as long as they
find it amusing and informative to do so.
Meanwhile this early lesson in the consequences of Bush's international
"realism" is instructive. International affairs usually gravitate to a
balance of power. The more the US struts around like a hegemon, the more it
will be mobbed by smaller powers while others watch on with schadenfreude.
Why should anyone want to help the US out? Only at a price. Mobbing is
common in the animal kingdom, and after all, we humans are animals. By
abandoning Clinton's pretence at the moral ascendancy over human rights,
Bush is likely to stimulate the nearest thing to a world united front
against US hegemonism we have seen the fall of the socialist bloc.
Chris Burford
London
PS from Janes Military Aerospace on the Lockheed Martin EP-3 Aeries II
http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/jema/jema010402_1_n.shtml
EP-3 or 'Iron Clad'? While referred to as an EP-3, initial reports
concerning this incident do not specifically identify the type of US
aircraft involved. Jane's analysis suggests that it is either a Lockheed
Martin EP-3E Aries II signals intelligence (SIGINT) aircraft or a Lockheed
Martin 'Iron Clad' P-3 covert surveillance platform.
The EP-3E is ... said to cost (spring 1997) $2,100 per flight hour to operate.
The US Navy (USN) defines the EP-3E's role in the following terms:
Operating in international airspace either independently or in conjunction
with other US forces, the EP-3E provides the Fleet Commander with a
real-time assessment of the tactical posture of potentially unfriendly
military forces. While providing intelligence for the Fleet in a
multithreat/open ocean environment, the reconnaissance crew must rapidly
determine the evolving tactical scenario by analysing available
information. Disseminating this information directly to the National
Command authority allows decision makers at all levels to respond to key
developments.
[But not this Sunday morning]
If the aircraft is actually an Iron Clad P3 the size of the cost is
indicated by the following passage from Janes:
"As originally proposed, the new mission and communications equipment
segment of the effort was scheduled to take place during US FYs98 and 99.
At the same time, the cost of modifying the two low-time P-3Cs to 'Iron
Clad' standard was estimated at then year US$26.6 million. As part of its
FY 98 funding deliberations, the US Senate's Defense Appropriations
Committee is reported to have recommended adding US$7 million to the 'Iron
Clad' funding request as a down payment on the described P-3C conversion
programme."
ie at least $15 million each for the modification and conversion alone.
