Posted on 12/13/2013 2:57:59 AM PST by markomalley
A Chinese naval vessel tried to force a U.S. guided missile warship to stop in international waters recently, causing a tense military standoff in the latest case of Chinese maritime harassment, according to defense officials.
The guided missile cruiser USS Cowpens, which recently took part in disaster relief operations in the Philippines, was confronted by Chinese warships in the South China Sea near Beijing’s new aircraft carrier Liaoning, according to officials familiar with the incident.
“On December 5th, while lawfully operating in international waters in the South China Sea, USS Cowpens and a PLA Navy vessel had an encounter that required maneuvering to avoid a collision,” a Navy official said.
“This incident underscores the need to ensure the highest standards of professional seamanship, including communications between vessels, to mitigate the risk of an unintended incident or mishap.”
A State Department official said the U.S. government issued protests to China in both Washington and Beijing in both diplomatic and military channels.
The Cowpens was conducting surveillance of the Liaoning at the time. The carrier had recently sailed from the port of Qingdao on the northern Chinese coast into the South China Sea.
According to the officials, the run-in began after a Chinese navy vessel sent a hailing warning and ordered the Cowpens to stop. The cruiser continued on its course and refused the order because it was operating in international waters.
Then a Chinese tank landing ship sailed in front of the Cowpens and stopped, forcing the Cowpens to abruptly change course in what the officials said was a dangerous maneuver.
According to the officials, the Cowpens was conducting a routine operation done to exercise its freedom of navigation near the Chinese carrier when the incident occurred about a week ago.
The encounter was the type of incident that senior Pentagon officials recently warned could take place as a result of heightened tensions in the region over China’s declaration of an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently called China’s new air defense zone destabilizing and said it increased the risk of a military “miscalculation.”
China’s military forces in recent days have dispatched Su-30 and J-11 fighter jets, as well as KJ-2000 airborne warning and control aircraft, to the zone to monitor the airspace that is used frequently by U.S. and Japanese military surveillance aircraft.
The United States has said it does not recognize China’s ADIZ, as has Japan’s government.
Two U.S. B-52 bombers flew through the air zone last month but were not shadowed by Chinese interceptor jets.
Chinese naval and air forces also have been pressing Japan in the East China Sea over Tokyo’s purchase a year ago of several uninhabited Senkaku Islands located north of Taiwan and south of Okinawa.
China is claiming the islands, which it calls the Diaoyu. They are believed to contain large undersea reserves of natural gas and oil.
The Liaoning, China’s first carrier that was refitted from an old Soviet carrier, and four warships recently conducted their first training maneuvers in the South China Sea. The carrier recently docked at the Chinese naval port of Hainan on the South China Sea.
Defense officials have said China’s imposition of the ADIZ is aimed primarily at curbing surveillance flights in the zone, which China’s military regards as a threat to its military secrets.
The U.S. military conducts surveillance flights with EP-3 aircraft and long-range RQ-4 Global Hawk drones.
In addition to the Liaoning, Chinese warships in the flotilla include two missile destroyers, the Shenyang and the Shijiazhuang, and two missile frigates, the Yantai and the Weifang.
Rick Fisher, a China military affairs expert, said it is likely that the Chinese deliberately staged the incident as part of a strategy of pressuring the United States.
“They can afford to lose an LST [landing ship] as they have about 27 of them, but they are also usually armed with one or more twin 37 millimeter cannons, which at close range could heavily damage a lightly armored U.S. Navy destroyer,” said Fisher, a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center.
Most Chinese Navy large combat ships would be out-ranged by the 127-millimeter guns deployed on U.S. cruisers, except China’s Russian-made Sovremenny-class ships and Beijing’s new Type 052D destroyers that are armed with 130-millimeter guns.
The encounter appears to be part of a pattern of Chinese political signaling that it will not accept the presence of American military power in its East Asian theater of influence, Fisher said.
“China has spent the last 20 years building up its Navy and now feels that it can use it to obtain its political objectives,” he said.
Fisher said that since early 2012 China has gone on the offensive in both the South China and East China Seas.
“In this early stage of using its newly acquired naval power, China is posturing and bullying, but China is also looking for a fight, a battle that will cow the Americans, the Japanese, and the Filipinos,” he said.
To maintain stability in the face of Chinese military assertiveness, Fisher said the United States and Japan should seek an armed peace in the region by heavily fortifying the Senkaku Islands and the rest of the island chain they are part of.
“The U.S. and Japan should also step up their rearmament of the Philippines,” Fisher said.
The Cowpens incident is the most recent example of Chinese naval aggressiveness toward U.S. ships.
The U.S. intelligence-gathering ship, USNS Impeccable, came under Chinese naval harassment from a China Maritime Surveillance ship, part of Beijing’s quasi-military maritime patrol craft, in June.
During that incident, the Chinese ship warned the Navy ship it was operating illegally despite sailing in international waters. The Chinese demanded that the ship first obtain permission before sailing in the area that was more than 100 miles from China’s coast.
The U.S. military has been stepping up surveillance of China’s naval forces, including the growing submarine fleet, as part of the U.S. policy of rebalancing forces to the Pacific.
The Impeccable was harassed in March 2009 by five Chinese ships that followed it and sprayed it with water hoses in an effort to thwart its operations.
A second spy ship, the USNS Victorious, also came under Chinese maritime harassment several years ago.
Adm. Samuel Locklear, when asked last summer about increased Chinese naval activities near Guam and Hawaii in retaliation for U.S. ship-based spying on China, said the dispute involves different interpretations of controlled waters.
Locklear said in a meeting with reporters in July, “We believe the U.S. position is that those activities are less constrained than what the Chinese believe.”
China is seeking to control large areas of international waters—claiming they are part of its United Nations-defined economic exclusion zone—that Locklear said cover “most of the major sea lines of communication” near China and are needed to remain free for trade and shipping.
Locklear, who is known for his conciliatory views toward the Chinese military, sought to play down recent disputes. When asked if the Chinese activities were troubling, he said: “I would say it’s not provocative certainly. I’d say that in the Asia-Pacific, in the areas that are closer to the Chinese homeland, that we have been able to conduct operations around each other in a very professional and increasingly professional manner.”
The Pentagon and U.S. Pacific Command have sought to develop closer ties to the Chinese military as part of the Obama administration’s Asia pivot policies.
However, China’s military has shown limited interest in closer ties.
China’s state-controlled news media regularly report that the United States is seeking to defeat China by encircling the country with enemies while promoting dissidents within who seek the ouster of the communist regime.
The Obama administration has denied it is seeking to “contain” China and has insisted it wants continued close economic and diplomatic relations.
President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to seek a new type of major power relationship during a summit in California earlier this year. However, the exact nature of the new relationship remains unclear.
Agreed. The Philippines wants to defend their territory, and I believe they can be effective, IF they have the means.
We don’t farm anymore either and that’s a sign of prosperity. At the turn of the last century 40% of employment was on farms now it’s down to 3% and no one is starving. That’s an improvement. Do you see it now?
I can partially agree with that, but, there is a big problem in that likely as not, the Chinese are going to steal your invention and sell it all over the world -- if you depend on exports or licensing to export markets to any degree, you are in trouble. (Been there, done that.) Attend the 2014 Consumer Electronics Show if you have any doubt, although these days, there's no shortage of Asians stealing from other Asians. :-)
A huge problem in the U.S., today, is the difficulty of a company with a good idea getting "over the hump", so to speak. That is, if one is really small, you can more or less fly under the radar, and if big, can participate in crony capitalism, but unless you have a truly "hot" idea, like FaceBook or YouTube, and especially for new manufacturers, that middle ground is tough, tough territory to succeed in.
Also, as has been pointed out, we farm like crazy today. We just don't need a lot of people to do it -- which is true in many other areas as well. Even if a lot of manufacturing of "widgets" came back to the U.S., it'd be highly automated and relatively few jobs would be created. So, a different solution is needed.
Sorry you had a bad experience. I've gotten my money's worth. And let me know when you find an automobile (or bicycle, for that matter) that doesn't depreciate.
That ChiCom sub probably had a USN attack sub right on its tail the whole time and nobody knew it. As it should be...
So, war (which--to reiterate--I am not advocating) would necessarily cause the American economy to "shrink dramatically"--so much so, in fact, that its currency would become essentially worthless?
I do not believe this happened as a result of WWII. Or as a result of WWI, prior to that. Or as a result of any other war in which the US has participated...
The revolutionary war was highly inflationary as the “continental” became nearly worthless. Confederate currency became worthless during the civil war. WWII was highly inflationary. Vietnam war was also highly inflationary.
Money is a piece of paper that entitles the bearer to some piece of the economy. During war, the non military economy shrinks. So unless you want to buy a tank or a fighter jet, there is more money around and less to buy.
Seems they’re looking for a fight, or to humiliate limp-wrist. Dangerous to count on a wimp backing down in public. Sometimes, the wimp does something stupid to save face, like blow up the world.
The small suipde chinese vessel was more maneuverable. Why were no warnong shot sent out? Why did we risk ourselves?
i see your logic. We have to let China demoralize us and lay down.
Free trade? Nice. Tell that to the guys working hard labor in Laogai camps. If it is so great, why dont you join them?
No, you don’t understand a single word I said…..and your conclusion was just blitheringly foolish and meaningless.
BTW, a newsflash for you…we do not RUN china. We cannot change their internal politics. The world will react to it, and they are merely reacting to us. We can however change oursleves to the point that what China does won’t matter a bit.
But again, you would be considererd an abject fool by every great conservative economist in history…….
This is speculation. A war would assure Chinese unity... much more important than US bonds.
Also if a car corner lot dealer cares not economically in screwing over a customer, why would a military style dictatorship worry about economic consequences the way we do? They do not have balance of powers n political issues to bar them from that... in fact it is their prime motivation to rule and bypass UN like politics altogether.
Last but not least, the current relationship framework of trade with Xhinanis just that, relationships, very fleeting. These people switch sides with the strong. These relationships hinge on control of such by their dictat and aim to destroy the current capitalist free trade constructs and deals we have with other healthy competitors like Taiwan.
What free trade indeed.
We cannot we cannot is all we hear from you. Happy and demoralized you seem. Suits you not me. If you think for one second they are out to carry their fair share of burden on the cross, you are deluded.
These people believe they are an advanced race much akin the Nazis believing they were purer than us.
you are making zero sense, and can’t read either.
We CAN change our own liberal policies, and if we do, our economy will rock and roll regardless of what China does. THATS NOT DEFEATIST you dope. That’s American optimism.
But dude, we DO NOT RUN CHINA….WE DO NOT VOTE IN CHINA…WE DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHANGE THEM INTERNALLY. THAT IS NOT DEFEATIST…THATS REALISTIC.
But we don’t have to. You guys are the defeatest sino phobes just obsessed with China. My whole point is that America’s problems are American made, and the solutions are too….
And I also know that economics are not a zero sum game. You have the liberal disease of thinking it is. That, and 3rd grade reading comp.
I read about this incident last week, and I figured then that the Cowpens was maneuvering aggressively to get inside the Chinese screen so they could get some pics of the Laoning. Now, we didn’t like that very much when the Russians did it during my Navy time, I doubt the Chinese would like it very much either.
These are certainly not the most recent examples available, as regarding what happens when America goes to war.
In any case, whereas Confederate currency became "worthless," indeed--what else might be expected, considering the outcome of the Civil War?--US currency certainly recovered.
So the question remains: If WWI and WWII did not "destroy [the] western monetary system" and/or destroy "capitalism in general," why should one suppose that some future war would do so?
Retired USAF here. I echo every one of your observations. Unfortunately. it also looks like the rot is making its way down the chain of command.
Thumbs up on your tagline too!
The western monetary system during ww1 and ww2 was based on gold and the USA had the most and also produced the most.
Not true now.
Plus, in ww1 and ww2, the usa suffered very little damage on their home turf.
that won’t be the case in ww3.
Not true now.
Well, we were on the gold standard during WWI.
Since FDR took us off the gold standard, however, this was not the case with WWII.
Plus, in ww1 and ww2, the usa suffered very little damage on their home turf.
that won’t be the case in ww3.
How can you be so certain that any war between the US and China would be a world war?
China is running us and bullying the world.
It is like with Islam. You cannot let these people in unless they give equivalent access to us. It is like fighting for freedom of speech by importing repressionist islam. It makes no sense. It is not free trade.
Helping them raise funds for their militaries by giving them access to US market is suicide. We certainly can stop that. And if we are doing good business with Japan, it cetaiy behooves on us to pay attention to China interfering with that.
Chinese colonization is a fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.