US warships head for South China Sea after standoff

BigRob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Messages
7,541
Location
USA
There was no war with North Korea when the spy ship "Pueblo" was seized, the men were mistreated, beaten and detained for months.

True, but tensions between the North and the South were boiling over at the moment. Given that the Pueblo was armed, and the tactic for spy ships back then was to cross into territorial waters to gather intelligence on the mobilization of forces (in this case North Korea) it seems plausible that North Korea (and legally speaking they would be correct) would view an armed naval ship in their territorial waters is an act of war.

Since we do not really know the exact location of the Pueblo when it was seized, this is all guesswork, but I would not be surprised if it had been crossing into territorial waters at some point, since this was typical for intelligence gathering missions.

The Pueblo was supposed to be covered by fighters based on a carrier in the area. However, the fleet was too far away to intervene when the Korean patrol boats fired on and boarded her.

This is the true, the 7th fleet knew she was under attack and failed to do anything.

The Pueblo was listed as a scientific research ship. Such ships fool nobody. China knows exactly what that ship was doing. The Koreans knew what the Pueblo was doing.

True, but that is not the point, the point is the legal distinction between unarmed research ships with a civilian crew, and an armed ship (technically) such as the Pueblo.

Spy ship is a spy ship, there is no distinction. Nevertheless, it was a U.S. ship that should have had timely cover. It did not. The Pueblo should have had timely cover. It did not.

I think there is a legal distinction to be made. If anyone buys it is not the point, as long as it can be made. That said, the 7th fleet should have come to their aid.

All intelligence ships (spy ships) should be covered by sufficient resources to prevent such disasters as the Pueblo. This current incident is not the first...it could have ended much worse.

It sounds good, but doing that also eliminates any possible deniability.

The issue here in my opinion is that China is trying to claim the EEZ as territory, when it is not. North Korea did the same thing by trying to claim a 50 mile area instead of the normal 12.

Should we send in a destroyer with these "spy ships" there is no wiggle room, it is either nothing or war. That is something we should work to avoid in my view.
 
Werbung:

dahermit

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
1,916
Should we send in a destroyer with these "spy ships" there is no wiggle room, it is either nothing or war. That is something we should work to avoid in my view.
U.S. sailors beaten for months (Pueblo). U.S. sailors repeatedly machine gunned by jets and patrol boats, many killed (U.S.S. Liberty). It is comforting to such victims, I am sure, that in your view, it was necessary to avoid war. In the case of the U.S.S. Liberty, air cover or a war ship covering them would not have resulted in war, they were attacked by our allies, the Israelis.
 

dahermit

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
1,916
...Given that the Pueblo was armed...
A single .50 caliber machine gun that was not available because it was under a tarp frozen to the deck. They knew that the gun was useless and the captain ordered the men not to try because they would have been killed in the attempt. A single .50 cal does not an armed ship make, when confronted by several patrol boats.
 

pocketfullofshells

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
12,009
Location
land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
You describe it so well




what I want to know is this

what the heck happened to the world will love us if we just pickt his idiot to rule

Arg!

I don't know, since no one said that outside you.

I love that you think we expect Obama to part the seas and solve world peace....but we are rational and understand that's not going to happen. but we don't expect you to be rational , makes sense, or really much of anything.
 

Hobo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
703
Location
Move around
The issue here in my opinion is that China is trying to claim the EEZ as territory, when it is not. North Korea did the same thing by trying to claim a 50 mile area instead of the normal 12.

Should we send in a destroyer with these "spy ships" there is no wiggle room, it is either nothing or war. That is something we should work to avoid in my view.

This is exactly the point. China is trying to stretch the rules of international law. The Navy has a zillion extra destroyers in the 7th fleet, sailing around without a mission. Any ship under a US flag should be given an escort if traveling near China.

We have drawn a line in the sand (water?), and nobody can screw with our ships without consequence. Our military ships should have specified rules of engagement where we protect all our ships - military or civilian.

The Chinese playing games near their coastline is no different than the pirates off Somalia. If China means to start a war then let them start it at sea -where they are the weakest. If they just want to test our President, then our President should show some them he is willing to go the distance when presented with an overt act of war.
 

The Scotsman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
2,985
Location
South of the Haggis Munching Line
..... If China means to start a war then let them start it at sea -where they are the weakest. If they just want to test our President, then our President should show some them he is willing to go the distance when presented with an overt act of war.
.... no ones talking about war, the incident is all part of the game. I reckon China is looking to reinforce its image, especially since its economy is buggered the only other thing it has to shout about is its military! Since the Spratly Islands is still a major bugbare and the old rivally between Japan and China trundles on I guess they are simply reverting to type! Its a testosterone thing......:rolleyes:
 

BigRob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Messages
7,541
Location
USA
U.S. sailors beaten for months (Pueblo). U.S. sailors repeatedly machine gunned by jets and patrol boats, many killed (U.S.S. Liberty). It is comforting to such victims, I am sure, that in your view, it was necessary to avoid war. In the case of the U.S.S. Liberty, air cover or a war ship covering them would not have resulted in war, they were attacked by our allies, the Israelis.

Sometimes national interests are more important than people. That is the way it is sometimes.

The Liberty was an accident, there is no reason that Israel would willingly attack a US ship.

In the case of the Pueblo, we should have responded, but did you want to invade North Korea over it? That would have been a total disaster.
 

BigRob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Messages
7,541
Location
USA
A single .50 caliber machine gun that was not available because it was under a tarp frozen to the deck. They knew that the gun was useless and the captain ordered the men not to try because they would have been killed in the attempt. A single .50 cal does not an armed ship make, when confronted by several patrol boats.

Well, legally there can be a distinction. It being unavailable is irrelevant to the notion that technically it was "armed."

Am I saying that this should make it armed? No, but you can bet the North Koreans would make that claim, and when an "armed" ships breaks territorial water boundaries, you can respond.
 

dahermit

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
1,916
Well, legally there can be a distinction. It being unavailable is irrelevant to the notion that technically it was "armed."

Am I saying that this should make it armed? No, but you can bet the North Koreans would make that claim, and when an "armed" ships breaks territorial water boundaries, you can respond.
The Koreans did not make any mention of the ship being armed. They stated that it had entered N. Korean waters and was on a spy mission. It did, it was. My point is that the Navy did not protect the ship as it should have. And then treated the officers as if they had done something wrong when they were released.

My point in mentioning the U.S.S Liberty is because of the relavance to the current incident. Those spy ships(Liberty, Pueblo) were susposed to have cover. The "cover" proved inadaquate. The experiances in the past should have made some policy changes as to cover of spy ships...but they have not. The Navy is still playing stupid.
 

icono1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
65
Location
Bluegrass St.
The Chinese are letting the Americans know that they are still in the game and will play hard ball in what they consider their back yard.
 
Werbung:

BigRob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Messages
7,541
Location
USA
The Chinese are letting the Americans know that they are still in the game and will play hard ball in what they consider their back yard.

Did anyone think we forgot that? If so, they need to wake up.
 
Top