The People’s Liberation Army Navy and the United States Navy just fought a running non-lethal battle off the coast of China, and the PLAN scored a tactical victory. Much of American media coverage focused on a single case of maritime harrassment, when some Chinese boats came way too close to USNS Impeccable, an unarmed Military Sealift Command sonar surveillance vessel. In reality, U.S. and Chinese ships and planes engaged in an escalating jousting match that stretched over nearly a week, involving almost every conceivable means of close-quarters physical engagement short of actually shelling or trying to board one another. Part of the action occurred 70 miles off China’s new underground nuclear submarine base at Yulin, at the southern tip of Hainan Island facing deep water in the South China Sea.
On the night of March 4, Impeccable’s near-sister ship USNS Victorious was closed on by a Chinese Bureau of Fisheries patrol boat that blinded members of her crew by shining a powerful searchlight in their eyes, then cut Victorious off aggressively by veering across her bow in the dark with no warning. That same night a Chinese Harbin Y-12 maritime surveillance aircraft conducted a dozen low flybys over Victorious. On March 5, a heavily armed PLAN frigate crossed Impeccable’s bow at barely one ship-length’s distance; minutes later a Y-12 did 11 flybys of her, too. On March 7, a Chinese intelligence collection ship radioed Impeccable to leave the area, or else — but she stayed. On March 9, in broad daylight, Impeccable was approached by a 5-vessel swarm.
They mobbed her, used poles and a grappling hook to try to sever and steal her expensive, classified towed array, threw chunks of wood in her path to try to damage her hull, then stood in her way to physically bar her egress — all while failing to respond to repeated calls on her radio. Impeccable’s use of fire hoses to dissuade one of the swarm only led to it closing the range even more in a reckless and threatening manner, coming within 25 feet. U.S. 7th Fleet sent the Arleigh Burke destroyer USS Chung-Hoon to the neighborhood “as a precaution.” Finally, Impeccable was grudgingly allowed to depart from her floating detention by the PLAN.
These events were concentrated and coordinated in time and space. Each side had clear-cut objectives. China’s goal was to exclude U.S. Navy ASW assets from a strategically critical theater of PLAN sub operations that lies within her 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone. America’s goal was to gather vital intelligence on those burgeoning sub ops occurring well outside China’s 12-mile territorial limit. Because Impeccable did withdraw from the area, China scored an important tactical victory which might also create legal precedent.
The eventual strategic implications remain to be seen. The two sides have made accusations and counter-accusations; domestic Chinese media coverage is whipping up patriotic pride. The Obama Administration seems eager to tone things down, but there are deeper implications that mustn’t be overlooked. Super-stealthy U.S. Navy fast-attack subs are ideally suited to snoop around Chinese undersea ops off Yulin. Congress needs to maintain funding for the two-per-year build rate of the littoral-optimized Virginia class SSN. Otherwise, our tactical loss in this non-lethal naval Battle of Yulin might lead to an eventual, irrecoverable strategic setback for America.
– Joe Buff
{ 53 comments… read them below or add one }
Well written. This has big implications.
“Otherwise, our tactical loss in this non-lethal naval Battle of Yulin might lead to an eventual, irrecoverable strategic setback”
And I might win the lottery. Mexico might invade the southern United States. Canada might turn into an Islamic theocracy and threaten the upper Great Plains states, and a Democrat might win the Presidency.
All of these are highly unlikely (well, except maybe the last) and there are _actual_ wars we are involved in, with _actual_ combat going on (wtf is a “non-lethal naval battle”? Is that to distinguish it from, you know, _actual_ naval battles?). How about we focus on preparing for the wars we are _actually_ fighting instead of fulminating about minor incidents that serve only as examples in inside-the-Beltway budget arguments.
I agree with Total here. And how might this create legal precedent? I’m no expert of law of the sea, but the fact that China threatened a US ship until it withdrew doesn’t have any legal significance.
I don’t follow Naval capability much, but considering the Chinese are investing in sattelite, UAV, and missile technology subs could be a way to keep forces in the area without drawing this kind of response.
From the Peking Review- “No Superpowers
Well i sure did expect some controversy between the two camps of “we do need to also kindly please prepare for/prevent possible future wars via conventional deterrence against emerging/reemerging peer competitors like Russia and China” versus “we should fight-to-win the wars we’re in now alone and solely ’cause there ain’t gonna be big war no more.” Hey dudes and dudettes this debate can’t be based on polarized ideology and military-industrial profiteering alone!!! We need to face the facts that the U.S. absolutely requires balance between the two sides in this Defense Quandary argument.
The legal precedent referred to by moi above is the quietly raging debate, which will be absolutely critical to all our freedom and happiness, of whether a warship can perform military functions such as training in the disputed area between another country’s 12-mile territorial limit and its 200-mile exclusive economic zone. The current language of UN treaties and international law are open-ended and ambiguous on this vital point. China just presented global society with a fait accompli in favor of their side of the argument! This is not funny! It matters a whole heck of a lot in counter-terror operations yes right now today.
Joe, what is your legal background? What are the specific issues involved here and how does China threatening a US ship until it leaves create any sort of legal precedent? How will this change the way treaties are interpreted?
“we should fight-to-win the wars we’re in now alone and solely ’cause there ain’t gonna be big war no more.”
It would be better if you didn’t strawman the argument. No one’s arguing that there isn’t ever going to be a big war any more. I–at least–am pointing out that a big war is really really unlikely in the immediate future and that we’re already pretty well prepared for it compared to the wars we’re actually fighting. The equivalent of your argument is someone stating in 1942 that we need to be ready to deal with asymmetric warfare. Well, sure, but how about we deal with the Japanese and Germans first?
“which will be absolutely critical to all our freedom and happiness, of whether a warship can perform military functions such as training in the disputed area between another country’s 12-mile territorial limit and its 200-mile exclusive economic zone.”
Is this a similar argument to the one–which quietly raged decades ago–about the difference between a 3 mile and 12 mile territorial limit? Yeah, that one sure was critical to all our freedom and happiness.
(Not that I’m arguing that the 200 mile EEZ issue isn’t important, but get a grip, man.)
Brian: Thanks for axing for clarification! There is a somewhat deadlocked major difference of opinion between China and the U.S. Having said what I explained in the comment just now to Total, here’s the beef of the argument:
1. The U.S. insists that the requirement of prior notice and permission granted for the USN to operate applies ONLY to the 12-mile Territorial Limit of any nation in the world.
2. China insists that any nation in the world has full “naval sovereignty” and can bar all foreign naval intrusions throughout its whole 200-mile EEZ.
Not clear the twain shall ever meet here. But China’s use of non-lethal force to get USS Impeccable to depart, and Impeccable’s aquiescence in doing so, provides a fait-accompli giving credence to China’s side — at least for all those who like China’s take on the legalities.
Re what Pres. Bush called the Global War on Terror and Pres. Obama prefers to call Overseas Contingency Operations is heavily dependent on naval surveillance, intel gathering, and interdiction ops in the key zone from 12 to 200 miles offshore from many terrorist/pirate/insurgency hot spots all over the place. In this way alone it ties in very critically to the war we are fighting right now, which only a madman (of which I am not one, generally speaking) would shortchange to build more of certain major platforms that SECDEF Gates seeks to limit or cancel.
Appreciate the need to strongly defend the right for all ships, inc. intel ships, to go anywhere in international waters. We don’t know what the Chinese are really thinking. It’s easy to read things into it. Lots of people of saying that it’s all about them being hostile to us. It’s also easy to imagine that they think we’re treating them like we treated the Soviets during the Cold War. We don’t have intel ships just outside the 12 mile limit of say, India, do we?
Good Morning Joe,
I will fallow your lead here and keep the topic on the roof. Me believes that you ole’ “Cold Warriors” called this cat and mouse and it became an honored game. Me sees this as no different with the exception of a new mouse.
What the PLA Navy and the PLA Air Force is doing in the South China Sea is and should be of great interest to the USN. The Growth of the Yulin Naval/Air Base on Hainan Island is enough to cause concern. Questions like what is China moving, two at last count, Type 094 Jin Class, although the JL-2 (DF-31) SLBM is still years away from becoming operational. SSBM’s down their? Why are the first J-12 and J-13 “advanced” fighter/attack air craft headed for Hainan Island?
I would think that the wappin’ China took in 1979 by Vietnam and the desire for revenge is insufficient reason for this military build up. The build ups on both in the Paracel and Spratly Island chains, especially that air base on Woody Island and what is happening on Rocky Island, we are not suppose to know about that so I will stop here with more about the mysterious going on on Rocky Island.
The USN has valid reasons for concern in the South China sea and the recent military activity by China supports these concerns. I would guess that future USNS “research vessels” that enter this now disputed area of the world would have a USNS would work with a USN surface escort and a USN CBG not to far away.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
But anyways sooner i think in someways your right.
Its like the mess with the carrier being based in florida…on the face of it having all those carriers in one spot gives one hell of a target.
But the poloticains have to have a poo flinging contest.
oops wrong spot lol
that the hegemony of the superpowers trying to partition and control the seas must be firmly opposed.
“Or well kneel and piss on the graves of our fathers, mothers, sons and daughters who fought for the right of this nation to do whatever is in our best interest.”
My guess is that they would like us to fight the wars we are actually fighting, as they did, rather than conjuring imaginary global conflicts out of a “non-lethal naval battle.”
“My guess is that they would like us to fight the wars we are actually fighting, as they did, rather than conjuring imaginary global conflicts out of a “non-lethal naval battle.”
Posted by: Total at April 7, 2009 02:50 PM”
To compare this minor conflict to a war is rediculous Total, where it does matter is our reputation to stare someone down not just with China, but the whole world. Read that again, my point has little to do with the Chinese, and a lot do do with world view. An example of this is how the world viewed Kennedy or Reagan after a number of major confrontations (Russians thought Reagan was nuts).
Also, anyone who has done a tour in the Balkans knows the difference between how the locals treat the French vs. the Germans. F@#king with the French was good entertainment where as NO ONE screwed with the Germans.
My guess is that they would like us to fight the wars we are actually fighting, as they did, rather than conjuring imaginary global conflicts out of a “non-lethal naval battle.”
Posted by: Total at April 7, 2009 02:50 PM
Concrats total you entirely missed the point of that statment.
MY point was that unless we accept the price of freedom…no its not a buck o five…ETERNAL VIGILANCE than we will have wasted the lives our forefathers/mothers gave for the lives and freedoms they fought and died for.
Anymore smartassed comments?
“To compare this minor conflict to a war is rediculous Total”
Yes, that was kind of my point. We’re already fighting a few wars; how about focusing on them?
“where it does matter is our reputation to stare someone down not just with China, but the whole world”
Oy vey. So getting all manly with the Chinese is a better idea than fighting our actual wars? Maybe on the high school playground…
“F@#king with the French was good entertainment where as NO ONE screwed with the Germans.”
How many wars have the Germans won since 1871?
“MY point was that unless we accept the price of freedom…no its not a buck o five…ETERNAL VIGILANCE than we will have wasted the lives our forefathers/mothers gave for the lives and freedoms they fought and died for.
Anymore smartassed comments?”
Too many to count. You honor your ancestors who died for freedom by worrying about imaginary wars we aren’t involved in. I do it by worrying about the wars we’re actually fighting.
I think my ancestors sleep better.
I’m not sure if the Carter was in-port or not, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we had a 688 or Virginia over there at the time this happened.
Whoops, sorry to the Seawolf and Connecticut.. I forgot you guys were part of SUBDEVRON 5 now. Didn’t mean to leave you out.
If a Chinese naval ship started towing a sensor array within 70 miles of a US submarine base I bet that the US response would involve a lot more than searchlights, grappling hooks and bits and wood.
Just as a matter of interest, does anyone know if the chinese have any kind of intel ships operating in the 200-12 mile zone of the US coast? I imagine the US would be rather disgruntled if the tables were turned.
“The Russians used to do this all the time. International waters are international waters, anyone can go there and do what they want.”
Sure, and there were all kinds of bumps and bruises during the Cold War.
Too many to count. You honor your ancestors who died for freedom by worrying about imaginary wars we aren’t involved in. I do it by worrying about the wars we’re actually fighting.
I think my ancestors sleep better.
Posted by: Total at April 7, 2009 03:49 PM
Imaginary wars…..wars happen for a thousand reasons Total. You or anyone else cant tell me the next 20yrs. In 2000 could you have predicted 911? The ivasion of iraq? afghanistan? In 1948 do you think everyones was talking about the war in vietnam and how long it would take? No if they were maybe they were told to stop immagining wars.
War is a constant not just small or large wars war itself. Not knowing the future and assuming you know what all the threats in the future are going to be if the hight of arrogance and stupidity.
The first world war was called many names one the war to end all wars the great war. But it wasnt was it.
Can you predict crop failures, epidemics, revolutions, terrorist attacks mad men seazing power jesus i could go on forever.
No you cant not to any certainty.
Iam not saying its stupid to prepare and adapt to current crises..im saying that its stupid to say wars between nations are over.
It no longer takes years to get armies to the battlfeild. Wars can be won or lost in days if not hours.
Having a well balanced force is better than a force designed for just anti terror threats or defeating armies in open battle.
Why is the statment of “i dont know if theres gonna be another WW or something like it in the future but maybe we should prepare for it also and not put all our eggs in one basket.
mmmmm eggs…
The U.S. Navy is a little more tame than you guys think.
“Imaginary wars…..wars happen for a thousand reasons”
Yeah, imaginary wars. This contrasts them with the wars we’re actually fighting. Remember them? Iraq? Afghanistan?
Running around, eeking about China just distracts us from the actual mission.
Posted by: Total at April 7, 2009 06:31 PM
And obviously you didnt read down.
I would say throw a few punches back and tell China to back off, but we have a bigger and more inportant mission in the Middle East, the Phillipines, and in parts of Europe that require our attention much more than than this stupid harrasment stuff. But once that is done, I say if they want to play, let them pay! Lay down the law with them. If they want to play school yard (or aqua yard) bully, then let ‘em have it!
I would say throw a few punches back and tell China to back off, but we have a bigger and more inportant mission in the Middle East, the Phillipines, and in parts of Europe that require our attention much more than than this stupid harrasment stuff. But once that is done, I say if they want to play, let them pay! Lay down the law with them. If they want to play school yard (or aqua yard) bully, then let ‘em have it!
Good Evening Joe,
I didn’t mean to put you on the spot here, I made an incorrect assumption and I apologize.
Personally I don’t see this incident as part of the GWOT. Two reasons China is having problems with the Islamic community itself in the SW part of the country. In many ways they are in my opinion as involved or more so then the United States. One indicator is the movement of its combat formations from the eastern costal area and around Beijing into the Muslim provinces.
The U.S. clearly provoked the Chinese here and for what ever purpose it still unclear. One would assume the U.S. was gathering information on the Chines Type 091 and 094 Submarines that are in the area, but that doesn’t make much sense because at the time these dock queens were in pot at Yulin Navel Base.
The Chines are putting alot of military assets on Hainan Island, some like the submarines and the short range fighter and attack aircraft are nothing more the props for Google Earth but the missile and ground forces must have a reason(s) for being their.
What are they?
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Byron: No problemo! The Pentagon right away publicly admitted that Impeccable was there to monitor possible sub ops in the area and map the seabed (which is very important for further monitoring of sub ops). A China Post news item linked on subsim.com says that the reason for this provocation was that the Pentagon wanted to see how the Obama Administration would react more than how the Chinese would react(!!). The forces on Hainan are presumably for self-defense, Beijing would not want the island to go the way of Grenada or long ago of Cuba (remember, China has their own very different take of U.S. military history). Knowing as Beijing does that US has vastly superior amphibious and carrier warfare groups than China could possibly have for many years, they need to pre-position some strength on Hainan to deter the U.S. from “getting ideas.” make sense or no?
China, Russia, we have to keep up with our recon there is a lot going on. A spat at sea there is more to be gained then complain about that. They are growing at an alarming rate and really want a Navy. Keep the money coming if we slack before you know it we are behind the 8 ball.
This could be solved by some smart diplomacy. The two nations are major trading partners, both have a lot to lose, and the US does not have a burning need to carry out this type of operation.
But clearly nobody here likes that idea.
So how abut more investment in non-lethal weapons?
To Total:
Battles don’t have to involve death or even violence.
And if you see this as a minor incident it only serves to show your ignorance. Please clue yourself up before posting.
“Battles don’t have to involve death or even violence.”
Golly Gee, and here I thought that was sort of their basic definition, especially in a military context. Get a clue before you post: the _point_ was that getting hysterical about a “non-lethal naval battle” when there are REAL battles going on is moronic.
“And obviously you didnt read down.”
I read the whole thing, Valcan, the problem was that you stopped making any kind of (however addled) sense after the part I answered.
Well written Drake…
whitesmoke software
Joe Buff; your constant self-reference as ‘moi’ makes you sound like Miss Piggy from the Muppets, and reduces your gravitas. It’s hard to take you seriously when you keep sprinkling your writing with such distracting, ridiculous cutesiness – nevermind juvenile, illiterate, dumbed-down internet instant message-speak/ text message-speak like ‘everybuddy’ and ‘lemme’…especially on a military issues blog.
Your article was good. Reading your participation in the comments section makes it seem like your article was good _because you had an editor_. Do yourself a favor and write like an adult and a professional, and you may find yourself taken more seriously by those who disdain your opinions below.
———
“F@#king with the French was good entertainment where as NO ONE screwed with the Germans.”
How many wars have the Germans won since 1871?
Posted by: Total at April 7, 2009 03:46 PM
Total, the writer’s point – from another Balkans vet – is that the French military were known for their enthusiastic willingness to: capitulate; yield; fail to defend themselves or intervene to defend innocent others; fail to respond to requests for assistance from embattled other peacekeepers, U.N. personnel, or police; and even cooperate with antagonists to the NATO/UN missions throughout the Balkans. How many wars have the Germans won, you ask? How many have the _French_ won? German troops did in the Balkans what they did throughout Europe anytime they weren’t faced with American troops…kicked rear-end and took names. They’re tough, disciplined, able troops, in an able military organization, worthy of respect. I’m glad we’re allies now and it doesn’t look like we’ll ever have to fight against each other again. They’re a rough bunch, not afraid of a fight, and good at winning and imposing their will on an antagonist.
They didn’t _win_ either World War, but they dominated their own continent and sections of Africa and Asia when faced with anyone other than Americans.
Further, Total, if you don’t think we’re in a ‘war’ with China, you haven’t been reading very much DefTech, or any other news. They’re attacking us in cyberspace. They’ve forced down and kept hostage one of our surveillance planes and its crew. They’ve now attacked and tried to steal or damage classified sonar equipment from a USN vessel in international waters…with their own naval vessels. They have become the sole creditor for a _huge_ amount of our governmental debt. They have bought huge American companies, and lots of property on our nation’s soil. One could even go so far as to view the infusion into the U.S. of vast amounts of unsafe, unhealthy, even dangerous products made in China as asymetrical warfare. If you don’t see that China is ‘attacking’ us in every venue possible, you’d better open your eyes. What you categorize as “Running around, eeking about China” isn’t Chicken-Little-esque, “the sky is falling”, baseless worry…it’s having one’s eyes open to another adversary who is sneakily trying to weaken, intimidate, and attack us on the sly _while_ we are pre-occupied and stretched thin with other, more open conflicts.
“How many wars have the Germans won, you ask? How many have the _French_ won? ”
In the last century? One more than the Germans, by my count.
“German troops did in the Balkans what they did throughout Europe anytime they weren’t faced with American troops…kicked rear-end and took names”
And that worked _so well_ in Yugoslavia in WWII.
“f you don’t think we’re in a ‘war’ with China”
No, I don’t think we’re at war with China. I think we’re involved in fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don’t think we’ve been involved in massive exchanges of fire in the Straits of Taiwan, which included an attempted Chinese amphibious landing in Taiwan itself, beaten off by a joint Taiwan-American naval force at the cost of an aircraft carrier, two Burkes, and a Virginia-class cruiser. I don’t think Chinese casualties numbered in the hundreds of thousands, while American and Taiwanese casualties topped out at 30-40K.
That’s what I think war with China would look like, not some podunk “non-lethal naval battle” that’s being ginned up by budget-obsessed morons who are worried that their pet defense project (insert here either F-22, DDG-1000, FCS) will get the chop.
“German troops did in the Balkans what they did throughout Europe anytime they weren’t faced with American troops…kicked rear-end and took names”
And that worked _so well_ in Yugoslavia in WWII.
Posted by: Total at April 8, 2009 10:06 AM
Maybe not Yugoslavia…but it led them to conquer all the rest of Europe, the Northern third of Africa, and most of Russia. Pick out the single, tiny little example that most suits your desire, and ignore the big picture if you want…there’s a reason that the French are known for surrendering, and the Germans for being bada55es. Work next to them, and you’d learn to respect them.
“Cyberspies penetrate electrical grid”
Dude, if you think espionage is the same thing as war, then you must also think that we’ve been at war since the start of the Republic. And you’re an idiot.
We spy on our allies. Does that mean we’re at war with them?
We spy on ourselves. Does that mean we’re at war with ourselves?
“Pick out the single, tiny little example that most suits your desire”
You mentioned the Balkans, not me.
And I’ll remind you (again) that the French have won one more world war than the Germans.
In fact, has Germany, as a nation (ie since 1871), ever actually won a war?
To Whomever, from “moi” aka Joe Buff. Jeeze lighten up dude! But still let’s try to be friends so here are the facts. Fact 1: I wrote that article and Chris Lowe posted it word for word the way I wrote it. Fact 2: The way I wrote my comments is the way I write my e-mails to all my close friends many of whom I am very proud to say are Active Duty or Vets and no one of them has ever complained to me re my writing style. Fact 3: I’ve (so far) won 3 annual literary awards from the Naval Sub League for formal papers in The Submarine Review and have had 3 pro-sub opeds in The Day of New London and one article in the USNI Proceedings etc. blah blah yakety yak, I’m a major benefactor of the Dolphin Scholarship Foundation and the Naval War College, & moi thus doesn’t feel much need to project/defend my gravitas at all times. Fact 4: I like the Muppets. Fact 5: I do aim to serve, and shall take your (oops I almost wrote “ur”) point to heart and shall from henceforth refrain from sounding like Miss Piggie (who I do think is kinda cute as anthropomorphized pigs go).
Sincerely and very respectfully (as the case may be depending on any rank/rate that may apply ) …Joe. [Oops I almost added a smiley face but remembered not to.]
PS: Please do feel free to disdain my opinions, I love very dearly our U.S. Constitution including the Right of Free Speech. I tend to learn more that way than if everyone just agreed with me or ignored me. However, for your information [note that I didn't say "fyi"], none of the comments below has caused me to alter my own opinions in the matters under discussion here, which we all need to concede are as controversial as they are significant.
Thanks again! …Joe.
Send the same ship this time with escorts. The Chinese may think twice next time. Are we at war with China. No, but its like the Cold War with the Soviets, w/out the acknowledgements. The Chinese are a growing threat.
Good Afternoon Joe,
I ‘m in agreement with why the Chinese are fortifying the South China sea. As I’ve mentioned before in posts here I see in the middle to distant future conflict between India and China. With India investing $2 billion in two “new” Russian nukes and it rapidly growing military industrial base, partnership with the Russians on sophisticated weapon systems and building tensions with China’s client state Pakistan, is in my opinion is the more likely reason for China’s actions. But that’s not part of this post and maybe we can have at this on another day.
In regard to what others say, shrug it off. I have found that those who are the most vile and critical are those who chose not to use their own names. If you going to exercise free speech the least one should do is identify themselves. Those who won’t do this are just bull sh** slingers.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
“I have found that those who are the most vile and critical are those who chose not to use their own names”
And I’ve found that people who don’t really have a counterargument revert to irrelevancies.
China a big worry for the whole world.We the US the super power. Can’t prevent the drugs coming into our country. The drug cartels are making billions.We get more drug addicts. No solution?
Posted by: Total at April 8, 2009 08:19 AM
Yep thats what i thought stopped reading it.
anywho i never liked Total more of a special K or reeses puffs person :)
Though i have to say i like egg and spam sandwiches to..
“Yep thats what i thought stopped reading it.”
My kingdom for grammar and spelling.
Byron Skinner touches on something I read on The Heritage Foundation a while back.
“U.S.
@ Total”Dude, if you think espionage is the same thing as war, then you must also think that we’ve been at war since the start of the Republic. And you’re an idiot.
We spy on our allies. Does that mean we’re at war with them?
We spy on ourselves. Does that mean we’re at war with ourselves?”
I do believe hacking our power grid is a bit more then espionage. If they did take out the power Grid, you have the potential for loss of life depending on how long it is out for. It could cost into the billions depending on how much damage they do. Not to mention, what type of access they would have to overload remotely monitored power plants. Seems to me that is an act of war, and if we did it to either of them, they may declare war on us.
“If they did take out the power Grid, you have the potential for loss of life depending on how long it is out for. It could cost into the billions depending on how much damage they do. ”
Sure, and if they actually did crash the grid, then that’s a different issue than what they seem to be doing now, which is reconnaissance.
Would you agree that you normally recon your targets defenses before the initial attack? If we landed a group of navy seals on that chinese island for “recon” would that be an act of war. My point is, I don’t care that they haven’t attacked yet…The problem is they are probing us presumbly for an attack. We can lay back and assume its nothing, or we can do something about it. I do believe we need to hack into there networks and do the same probing and see what becomes of that.
“Would you agree that you normally recon your targets defenses before the initial attack? If we landed a group of navy seals on that chinese island for “recon” would that be an act of war. My point is, I don’t care that they haven’t attacked yet…The problem is they are probing us presumbly for an attack. We can lay back and assume its nothing, or we can do something about it. I do believe we need to hack into there networks and do the same probing and see what becomes of that.”
All countries do recon during peacetime. Why countries even send ships near the other country’s coast line to gather signal intelligence. Ships named Victorious and Impeccable (for sarcasm impaired, see post above). But recon is not the same thing as war. Especially not when we’re actually fighting two wars at the moment, real wars, that don’t have “non-lethal battles.”
And what makes you think that we’re NOT hacking into their networks? We did it to the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War and we’re certainly doing it to the Chinese right now.
Let’s fight the wars we’re actually involved in, and not go looking for wars we’re not, especially when the trumping up of China is being done largely for budgetary reasons.