|
china has a super villain submarine cave for this very reason
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:52 |
|
|
STOP LAUGHING AT THE DEVIL BALOONS STOP IT STOP HAVING FUN YOU WON'T BE LAUGHING WHEN ONE OF THEM SHOWS UP WITH YOUR FACE ON IT AND IT HANGS YOU WITH ITS BALLOON STRING NOOSE
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 19:42
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:If the US flies one of those into China’s sovereign airspace and they shoot it down, fair play to China. That would be a reasonable response to such a US intrusion. Similarly, the Soviets were 100% justified to shoot down a U-2. Actually the US does not think this , get your story straight https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Bush+pleased+by+release+of+U.S.+crew+from+China-a073374676 ''To apologize would have suggested that we had done something wrong and were accepting responsibility for having done something wrong, and we did not do anything wrong, and therefore it was not possible to apologize,'' Powell told reporters during a trip to Paris.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 19:45
|
|
|
Not So Fast posted:Do we know yet why Russia blew up that weather balloon? Oh my god the next Call of Duty is totally going to have a spy ballon in it, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 19:48
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Actually the US does not think this , get your story straight You should read the history. The EP-3 was in international airspace when it was rammed by the J-8 fighter jet and then made an emergency landing. Yes, after the Chinese jet rammed into the 4-engine prop plane, the prop plane did announce an emergency and land in China. There are good examples of the US violating airspace. I provides two in this thread (Iran and USSR). This one isn’t a good example.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 19:52
|
|
|
Clip-On Fedora posted:STOP LAUGHING AT THE DEVIL BALOONS STOP IT STOP HAVING FUN the balloon with ur face on it: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 19:52
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:You should read the history. The EP-3 was in international airspace when it was rammed by the J-8 fighter jet and then made an emergency landing. shut the gently caress up
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 19:53
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:You should read the history. The EP-3 was in international airspace when it was rammed by the J-8 fighter jet and then made an emergency landing. Try again busterino quote:The U.S. ambassador's letter said, ''We are very sorry the entering of China's airspace and the landing did not have verbal clearance.''
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 19:54
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Try again busterino sorry about verbal clearance
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 19:56
|
|
|
loquacius posted:couldn't they have shot the balloon with a sniper rifle instead of using a missile, seems a bit cost-ineffective for the worldwide champions of capitalism if you ask me i learned more about the balloons and apparently, they're built so that even large bullets (like the machine guns on a jet) can't immediately knock them out. the balloon sort of folds over and just slowly leaks coolant for like the next couple of days until it goes down
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 19:57
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Try again busterino It is a recognized norm for a lame duck aircraft to land wherever possible. When on mission and prior to being rammed, the EP-3 did not violate Chinese airspace. After the J-8 rammed them and they wete in a state of in flight emergency, they did land inside China. That’s not in dispute. I guess the EP-3 crew could have all just died in the ocean, but as it was the crew lived and the Chinese government got to fiddle with an EP-3 for 90 days or so. Win/win, really.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 20:01
|
|
|
sure would be nice to have someone to probate people in the most popular bbcode sub forum this side of the 2000s
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 20:02
|
|
|
NeatHeteroDude posted:i learned more about the balloons and apparently, they're built so that even large bullets (like the machine guns on a jet) can't immediately knock them out. the balloon sort of folds over and just slowly leaks coolant for like the next couple of days until it goes down that's fine, we're not going anywhere
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 20:03
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:It is a recognized norm for a lame duck aircraft to land wherever possible. When on mission and prior to being rammed, the EP-3 did not violate Chinese airspace. After the J-8 rammed them and they wete in a state of in flight emergency, they did land inside China. That’s not in dispute. Other way around! The EP-3 rammed the JP-8 in a zone that the PRC has the right to interfere with other nations' military operations per UN convention, murdering at least one pilot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 20:08
|
|
|
mlmp is pretty close to winning everyone over imo, but it will require more long form explanation to get there. just stick with it and don't let cynicism win today
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 20:09
|
|
|
duomo posted:that was donoteat responding to some idiot on Twitter promoting “direct action” by derailing freight trains with a 3D printed derailer Wikipedia posted:Attempts to derail the train using a portable derailer failed; the portable derailer was thrown off the track by the force of the train when struck. Police officers attempted to engage the red fuel cutoff button by shooting at it; after three shots mistakenly hit the larger red fuel cap, this ultimately had no effect because the button on former Conrail SD40-2s like CSX 8888 must be pressed for several seconds before the switch is activated, causing the engine to starve of diesel fuel and shut down.[5][7] 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 20:11
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Other way around! The EP-3 rammed the JP-8 in a zone that the PRC has the right to interfere with other nations' military operations per UN convention, murdering at least one pilot. Ah, well, agree to disagree. I think the fighter jet pilot approaching fast and from behind/below probably could have avoided the collision with a 4-engine prop plane flying straight and level. Hot dogging, dangerous fighter pilots know no international boundaries. Their hubris is international.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 20:11
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Ah, well, agree to disagree. I think the fighter jet pilot approaching fast and from behind/below probably could have avoided the collision with a 4-engine prop plane flying straight and level. Hot dogging, dangerous fighter pilots know no international boundaries. Their hubris is international. They're pretty clear that they have the right to do this in their own zone (they're supposed to be there!) It's pretty gross -- hubristic, even -- to violate someone's airspace like that, kill people, and say "well they shouldn't have followed their legislation and implemented reasonable countermeasures that we knew could happen but didn't care about cause safety and the rules-based international order be damned" quote:
https://www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/chn_1998_eez_act.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 20:22
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:They're pretty clear that they have the right to do this in their own zone (they're supposed to be there!) It's pretty gross -- hubristic, even -- to violate someone's airspace like that, kill people, and say "well they shouldn't have followed their legislation and implemented reasonable countermeasures that we knew could happen but didn't care about cause safety and the rules-based international order be damned" You appear to be confused about the differences between an ADIZ, an EEZ, and the 12NM of sovereign airspace and UNCLOS. Like if you search that link you provided, it doesn't have even one mention of airspace. It's talking about ships and boats and exploitation of resources in or under the water, because it's about EEZ enforcement. If the EP-3 went underwater and started illegally catching fish, that would be a violation of China's EEZ, yes. mlmp08 has issued a correction as of 20:34 on Feb 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 20:29
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1621960356984668161 https://twitter.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1621957130222800899 both sides are cheering on being able to shoot down a weather balloon lmao
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 20:48
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Having Joe "jobs" biden dismantle the new deal feels very appropriate. Look, he doesn't want to gut social security, but the Republicans control Congress now, and we have to compromise. Maybe vote harder for Democrats next time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 20:51
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:You appear to be confused about the differences between an ADIZ, an EEZ, and the 12NM of sovereign airspace and UNCLOS. Like if you search that link you provided, it doesn't have even one mention of airspace. It's talking about ships and boats and exploitation of resources in or under the water, because it's about EEZ enforcement. Sigh this is frustrating quote:The term “other internationally lawful uses of the sea” does not include the freedom to conduct military activities in the EEZ of another State. Viewed either from the perspective of the EEZ regime or from the coastal State’s right to protect its own national security interests, coastal States have the right to restrict or even prohibit the activities of foreign military vessels and aircraft in and over its EEZ.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 20:51
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Sigh this is frustrating You fundamentally do not understand what “maritime” “water” “undersea” etc means, it seems. Go read about UNCLOS, you’ll be better informed after that. The US and China routinely operate inside each other’s EEZs. It’s no big deal. EEZ != UNCLOS airspace. EEZ does not prohibit freedom of navigation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 20:53
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:America is the stupidest nation on Earth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:You fundamentally do not understand what “maritime” “water” “undersea” etc means, it seems. The term “other internationally lawful uses of the sea” does not include the freedom to conduct military activities in the EEZ of another State. Viewed either from the perspective of the EEZ regime or from the coastal State’s right to protect its own national security interests, coastal States have the right to restrict or even prohibit the activities of foreign military vessels and aircraft in and over its EEZ. is reading really that hard? mawarannahr has issued a correction as of 21:02 on Feb 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 20:59
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:They're pretty clear that they have the right to do this in their own zone (they're supposed to be there!) It's pretty gross -- hubristic, even -- to violate someone's airspace like that, kill people, and say "well they shouldn't have followed their legislation and implemented reasonable countermeasures that we knew could happen but didn't care about cause safety and the rules-based international order be damned" 12nm is the "border" where a country can exercise the right to prevent a boat or aircraft from entering similar to a land border. Exclusive economic zones and Air Defense Identification Zones or similar are not part of a country's "borders" but by treaty they get certain rights to regulate commerce. In the case of aircraft, longer range Air Defense Identification Zones are regulations for aircraft that wish to enter the country (or allied countries) that run the zone. They must identify themselves, have a file flight plan and so forth. If they do not do these things, they will likely be intercepted. However an aircraft that has no intention of entering the country(ies) that run the ADIZ is allowed by law to transit the zone so long as they don't "enter the country" by going with 12nm of the country. For a very common example, say a Russian bomber is on a training mission or patrol and fly toward Alaska. Once the enter the hatched area: #/media/File:Alaska_ADIZ_2009.jpg) when NORAD (US/Canada) radar picks them up traffic controllers will start calling the aircraft on guard asking them to identify themselves. The Russian aircraft will probably not respond unless a woman makes the announcement - can't find a link but its exactly what you think and continue doing their thing. If they start straying closer to Alaska interceptors will be scrambled. Once the fighters reach the Russian aircraft they'll just follow them unless the aircraft enters the 12 nm zone. The US also enforces an ADIZ around Guam and helps operate an ADIZ for RoK/Japan. Taiwan claims a ridiculously large ADIZ that the US doesn't help with flying intercepts for or anything. Military aircraft of all countries fly into each others ADIZ or equivalent all the time and while there is "drama" everyone knows its just going through the motions of being "shocked" unless that 12nm border is violated. hobbesmaster has issued a correction as of 21:05 on Feb 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 21:02
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 21:04
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:adiz there was no adiz before 2013, though that doesn't preclude china's rights
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 21:05
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:The term “other internationally lawful uses of the sea” does not include the freedom to conduct military activities in the EEZ of another State. Viewed either from the perspective of the EEZ regime or from the coastal State’s right to protect its own national security interests, coastal States have the right to restrict or even prohibit the activities of foreign military vessels and aircraft in and over its EEZ. It is for you? You're citing something that has no basis in international law. Go read UNCLOS. You will be better informed then. If you want to argue that no one should respect UNCLOS, that's fine. But let's not pretend that's mainstream; China generally respects UNCLOS. Here is the context of the citation you are googling: quote:Context If China wants to challenge UNCLOS and rule that EEZ gives them full ability to ban any and all foreign military equipment from their EEZ, they would be at odds with established norms and at risk of significant escalation. They would also be inconsistent with their own current flights and navigation, which generally follow UNCLOS provisions. hobbesmaster posted:In the case of aircraft, longer range Air Defense Identification Zones are regulations for aircraft that wish to enter the country (or allied countries) that run the zone. They must identify themselves, have a file flight plan and so forth. If they do not do these things, they will likely be intercepted. However an aircraft that has no intention of entering the country(ies) that run the ADIZ is allowed by law to transit the zone so long as they don't "enter the country" by going with 12nm of the country. Yeah, and a common response when transiting an ADIZ is something like "This is [country] aircraft conducting routine operations in international airspace" and then continuing to fly. As you said, it's pretty normal and everyone does that. Sometimes when things are really spicy, it's wiser to simply leave if the ADIZ operators sound really on-edge. It's no fun to get shot down even if you're technically lawful by 1 NM or something. mlmp08 has issued a correction as of 21:11 on Feb 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 21:08
|
|
|
if this was a downed weather balloon then where is the ufo and the aliens bodies?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 21:08
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:The UNCLOS establishes the EEZ regime the US is not a party to the UNCLOS and takes the position that the freedom of navigation provisions always allow military vessels to travel within the EEZ so long as they do not linger. in the case of things like a patrol aircraft they’ll follow a straight line through.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:It is for you? You're citing something that has no basis in international law. Go read UNCLOS. You will be better informed then. If you want to argue that no one should respect UNCLOS, that's fine. But let's not pretend that's mainstream; China generally respects UNCLOS. Buddy guy, you're citing Jonathan G. Odom, U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps. Whose side do you think he -- as a member of the government that routinely violates (despite being signatory to) the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention, as well as UN treaties prohibiting torture, rendition, kidnapping, war of aggression -- going to find reasonable? hobbesmaster posted:the US is not a party to the UNCLOS and takes the position that the freedom of navigation provisions always allow military vessels to travel within the EEZ so long as they do not linger. in the case of things like a patrol aircraft they’ll follow a straight line through. It's China's zone 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 21:14
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Buddy guy, you're citing Jonathan G. Odom, U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps. Whose side do you think he -- as a member of the government that routinely violates (despite being signatory to) the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention, as well as UN treaties prohibiting torture, rendition, kidnapping, war of aggression -- going to find reasonable? If you don't trust me, read hobbesmaster's posts. You just seemed confused about airspace versus maritime and mineral economic activity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 21:15
|
|
|
Let me put it a simpler way, mawarannahr If you think EEZs ban flights and transits of military aircraft and ships, consider that this is a map of the EEZs around the North Pole. Don't you think this would be tremendously unfair to Russia if EEZ resulted in military aircraft and ship bans?  If I included the European EEZs, Russia's entire western access to the Atlantic would be blocked. For obvious reasons, that is not the way it works.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 21:20
|
|
|
OK, so I have a "My uncle" story. My uncle was a professor of engineering at Syracuse and back in the 70's and 80's he helped the CIA design spy satellite optical instruments. I gave him a quick call after we sent an F-22 to shoot down a balloon with a multi-million dollar missile and asked him what he thought it was. He says that he doesn't know, but he'd had students from China who'd gone back after they graduated and he's certain that their spy satellites are probably "good enough" to dispense with something as noticable as floating a big bag of air over the continental US. There are things that you can learn by doing that, but nothing vital enough to justify the expense and possible loss of equipment. In his opinion, odds are that it actually was just a weather balloon. But he's not certain because the Chinese government does "dumb loving things just like we do".
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 21:20
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Let me put it a simpler way, mawarannahr We're talking about China and I haven't read enough on Wikipedia about this yet and I have to go to Home Depot
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 21:21
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:It's China's zone they say so. the US, Russia and China are kind of hypocrites here to varying degrees, though sometimes by accident (heres some fun cold war/treaty translation trivia). regardless, the rule everyone agrees on for each other’s borders is 12nm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 21:23
|
|
|
just realized the Ukraine thread title is now an actionable threat
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 21:23
|
|
|
god shut up mlmp
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:52 |
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:OK, so I have a "My uncle" story. cool
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 21:25
|
|
