11 ms·

Chinese warship stole US underwater drone

93 points by nmc 10y ago

crystalmeph 10y ago
"[USNS] Bowditch had stopped in the water to pick up two underwater drones. At that point a Chinese naval ship that had been shadowing the Bowditch put a small boat into the water. That small boat came up alongside and the Chinese crew took one of the drones." It's pretty likely this is a shove-back for Trump aggravating China over Taiwan. The mechanics of international one-upmanship are fascinating, it's like watching two big guys doing everything short of actually getting into a bar fight (hopefully), mixed with a prank war.
- nkrisc 10y ago
  I'll take the prank war over the bar fight. Though you may eventually find the prank way escalates to being nastier than the bar fight.
- homero 10y ago
  They're also dumping hundreds of billions of usa bonds
  - josefresco 10y ago
    [citation needed]
    - tcoppi 10y ago
      http://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt http://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt Oct 2015 - Oct 2016 they've reduced their total holdings by ~139 billion. This could have been through either outright selling, or just letting them mature and not reinvesting, or some combination. Either way that doesn't really look like dumping and is practically pocket change in the scheme of US debt.
      - forgetsusername 10y ago
        >they've reduced their total holdings by ~139 billion That hardly constitutes "dumping hundreds of billions of usa bonds". The net change in foreign ownership over the past year was only ($60BB).
  - forgetsusername 10y ago
    >They're also dumping hundreds of billions of usa bonds First off, no, they aren't: http://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt http://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt Second: how, exactly, would that work? For the millionth time you cannot sell without a buyer. So if China is "dumping", someone else is buying. Or do you think they're just lighting these bonds on fire? Guess who wins in that scenario. Hint: not China. You know, there's so much controversy about "fake news" lately, but the reality is that people will seek out the stories that fit their narrative, rather than looking at the data. Nobody to blame but ourselves.
    - tossedaway334 10y ago
      If you owe the bank $1000 dollars, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank $1 billion dollars, you own the bank.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    This is well-reported in The Economist, Bloomberg, WSJ. The Chinese government is shoring up its currency due to capital injections in its SOEs and banks. This isn't like the mid-1990s dump of the Rupiah; there isn't a malicious aspect to it. If it somehow were malicious, it would be pathetic because the U.S. dollar has increased in value over that time period.
- SixSigma 10y ago
  > It's pretty likely this is a shove-back for Trump aggravating China over Taiwan. [Citation needed] Is this Trump's fault too ? Obama administration files trade challenge against China Thursday, December 15, 2016 10:48 AM EST WASHINGTON (AP) - Amid new tensions with China, the Obama administration on Thursday launched its 15th challenge against Beijing at the Word Trade Organization, escalating a long-simmering debate over practices that U.S. officials say limit American farmers' ability to export rice, wheat and corn to the Asian powerhouse.
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/16/politics/chinese-warship-underwater-drone-stolen/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/16/politics/chinese-warship-under... > Although it's unclear what the motivation was for the Chinese, the seizing of the drone comes on the heels of other provocative incidents that have happened since President-elect Donald Trump received a congratulatory call with Taiwan's President, a violation of the US's agreement with China's "One China policy". China publicly voiced their disapproval of that incident and contacted the White House at the time.
    - SixSigma 10y ago
      Oh, CNN. Not a credible source, that's just editorializing. Can you quote a member of the Chinese govt. saying so ? "Motives unclear" yeah ok, must be Trump's fault.
      - kbenson 10y ago
        Are you saying CNN isn't a credible source?
        elefanten 10y ago
        It's been something of a trope on the (alt)right to rip on CNN. It's up there with NYT and WaPo in terms of ire drawn. Specifically, the news clip of a CNN anchor saying its illegal to read WikiLeaks is often held up as some trump card that CNN is has lost 100% credibility on everything.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- jsnathan 10y ago
  Less likely about Trump, and more likely about the 'freedom of navigation' exercises the U.S. has been conducting in the same general area - something which these sailors would be acutely aware of, and which they may well feel the desire to 'shove-back' on. Not to say it can't be both.
  - whybroke 10y ago
    Direct theft of hardware, however, is distinct escalation. The US's 'freedom of navigation' exercises have going on for quite some time.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    I really doubt that such on-the-spot adventurism is tolerated in the Chinese Navy. against a commercial ship this could be plausible but against a navy vessel belonging to another country? If you were the captain of a Chinese Navy ship, would you want to be summoned to Beijing to explain why President Xi had unexpectedly received a nastygram from Washington? Perhaps you are right and I'm misinterpreting early versions of the story, but my impression is that the Chinese military values conformity and command structures rather than spontaneity and initiative. Centralization and respect for hierarchy are hallmarks of Chinese culture.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  I had to giggle at the bit in the story where the US ship sent a signal to complain as the Chinese one sailed off and the Chinese acknowledged receipt but didn't reply. Naval protocol is a funny thing; the sea is bigger than any country and it's not hard to picture the personnel on both ships being polite and professional to each other even as an act of piracy took place, because it was directed from elsewhere. It's a bit like professional diplomats delivering notices of a state of war and then shaking hands as they bid each other farewell.
arethuza 10y ago
Reminds me of Operation Barmaid where a UK nuclear submarine used cutters to steal a towed array from a Warsaw-pact vessel: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9602103/HMS-Conquerors-biggest-secret-a-raid-on-Russia.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9602103/HMS-C...
- ljf 10y ago
  Excellent article. And similarly in this case - what was the 'drone' doing so close to their ship? What spying were they hoping to achieve?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
sandworm101 10y ago
The lines between 'took', 'let go' and 'gave' are blurred. I wouldn't take and story abour the loss of an intelegence asset at face value.
- Johnny555 10y ago
  The lines between 'took', 'let go' and 'gave' are blurred. Is this less blurry: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/12/16/china-steals-us-underwater-drone-in-south-china-sea.html http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/12/16/china-steals-us-unde... "We call upon China to return our [unmanned underwater vehicle] immediately, and to comply with all of its obligations under international law," Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook responded.
nullnilvoid 10y ago
What were the drones doing in South China Sea? If anybody sends a drone in my backyard, I would shoot it down righteously.
- mr_spothawk 10y ago
  they were doing what drones everywhere do... "measuring" with "sensors".
- JamilD 10y ago
  The drone was operating in international waters. And despite the name, only a small part of the South China Sea is in China's Exclusive Economic Zone. Much of the sea is closer to other countries (like the Philippines and Vietnam), but China lays unilateral claim to many of the uninhabited islands. edit: A map, for reference: http://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/5464160/data/south-china-sea-map-slide-5-data.jpg http://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/5464160/data/south-china-sea-map...
  - jwtadvice 10y ago
    This is one interpretation of a widely disputed issue. Many people like to underwrite this opinion with the Hague Tribunal findings, but unfortunately UNCLOS itself (article 299) states that it has no authority to decide territorial cases. In any case, the claims to the islands in the South China Sea are hardly unilateral, as the United States recognized many of them including the Paracels and Scarborough during the Potsdam Declaration, Cairo Declaration, San Fransisco Treaty and others (at the time motivated to punish the imperial Japanese at the end of WWII). Hell the Cairo Declaration even declared Manchuria and Taiwan as owned by China. It's funny what the American media bubble does to history.
    - jwtadvice 10y ago
      For the person/persons downvoting this, can you explain how it does not contribute to the conversation? I'm being very factual and on topic. If you'd like, we can go over the text of UNCLOS, Cairo and Potsdam Declarations and SF Treaty.
godmodus 10y ago
Lol
BugsJustFindMe 10y ago
Background: I used to work on these UUVs. When CNN says "oceanographic research", what they actually mean is building a sonar ray caustics model of the environment, because sound bends just like light does when the medium transmission speed changes, and the speed of sound in water changes noticably with depth,salinity,temperature. When CNN says "unclear motivation", what they mean is that the motivation is actually pretty clear. China doesn't like that the US is building underwater surveillance infrastructure in their backyard.
- nullnilvoid 10y ago
  It is very clear that the US is trying to spy on China. I don't blame China for taking the drones. If Russia sends drones to Hawaii, the US will take them too.
  - MrZongle2 10y ago
    The drone was operating in international waters. How, then, is China justified in taking it? Isn't that simply theft? It would have been another thing entirely if the drone were operating within Chinese territory.
    - roywiggins 10y ago
      In international waters? I'd call it piracy.
      - Brockenstein 10y ago
        And pirates are pretty cool...
      - Brockenstein 10y ago
        And pirates are pretty cool...
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        It can only be piracy if done for private ends. Done on behalf of a government, it's simply an act of war.
brilliantcode 10y ago
Going forward this will be a critical test of US status in the region and set a precedent for the incoming administration on dealing with China. So far, the US has been unwilling to engage China directly, only using proxy countries to apply pressure, ex. THAAD. It has been highly effective and unless China takes direct action that harms American naval & airforce assets, it's unwilling to engage in a downright skirmish that results in economic loss. Following that previous logic, China is very careful about not kicking the honet's nest because it would be it's end. The Chinese leadership must know fully well that they cannot match the US militarily. Also given Xi's failing grades on foreign diplomacy, it's suffice to conclude that these grandiose rhetorics are entirely aimed at it's own population, who are reaching a boiling point that will ultimately put into uncertainty the survivability of Xi's powerbase and the entire party itself. Xi made too many enemies so he's looking for ways to survive by fighting fire with fire and creating more enemies from within. An internal dialogue fueling crisis with the US is a perfect propaganda tool and the fear of war, the fear of losing your properties, belongings, material possessions you've spent time on...history has shown is highly effective in controlling the populace.
- noir_lord 10y ago
  > Following that previous logic, China is very careful about not kicking the honet's nest because it would be it's end The US would win a conventional war but it would be bloody and expensive in both life and material. Neither side wants that, China wants to get to a point where it's strong enough that fighting the US would be incredibly expensive and the US wants to maintain a position where it's strong enough to deter China from doing whatever China wants to do, it's a strange world when the US's largest trading partner is in a cold war style stand off.
  - woofyman 10y ago
    How can 2 nuclear powers fight a conventional war?
    - noir_lord 10y ago
      Theoretically by not pushing the other one so hard that they'd go nuclear but it would be tap dancing on a cliff edge the whole way. The 'traditional' way for nuclear powers to fight a 'war' is via Proxy wars (Vietnam, middle eastern wars etc).
mrfusion 10y ago
Could this be an instance of "fake news"?
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Perhaps, but you should identify what you consider to be false or propagandistic about it, otherwise you are just trying to cause confusion rather than get at the truth, and that's rude to the other people here. As they say on examination papers: give reasons for your answer.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
finid 10y ago
Reminds of that time when the US sent a sub to tap a Soviet underwater communication cable off the cost of the then Soviet Union. That was brazen, and bad. It was the kind of stuff that leads to war. What the Chinese just did is just as bad, and could lead to war.
squozzer 10y ago
We should expect little games like this, as it reveals China's technical inferiority - otherwise, why steal something if you already have something better? I'm more interested in their clain on Taiwan -- is it the island (Formosa) or its inhabitants (the descendants of Kai-shek) that they claim? Claiming the island at least has a logic that one can support or deny. Claiming the inhabitants, well then every country with an ethnic Chinese population - e.g. Indochina, San Francisco -- might well be at risk.
beambot 10y ago
Curious nautical legal question: How does recovery (salvage / claims) work for an unmanned drone in international waters -- couldn't you draw analogies to any 'ole piece of salvageable junk? In which case, couldn't anyone lay claim to it...?

93 points by nmc 10y ago

"[USNS] Bowditch had stopped in the water to pick up two underwater drones. At that point a Chinese naval ship that had been shadowing the Bowditch put a small boat into the water. That small boat came up alongside and the Chinese crew took one of the drones." It's pretty likely this is a shove-back for Trump aggravating China over Taiwan. The mechanics of international one-upmanship are fascinating, it's like watching two big guys doing everything short of actually getting into a bar fight (hopefully), mixed with a prank war.

nkrisc 10y ago
I'll take the prank war over the bar fight. Though you may eventually find the prank way escalates to being nastier than the bar fight.
homero 10y ago
They're also dumping hundreds of billions of usa bonds
- josefresco 10y ago
  [citation needed]
  - tcoppi 10y ago
    http://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt http://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt Oct 2015 - Oct 2016 they've reduced their total holdings by ~139 billion. This could have been through either outright selling, or just letting them mature and not reinvesting, or some combination. Either way that doesn't really look like dumping and is practically pocket change in the scheme of US debt.
    - forgetsusername 10y ago
      >they've reduced their total holdings by ~139 billion That hardly constitutes "dumping hundreds of billions of usa bonds". The net change in foreign ownership over the past year was only ($60BB).
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  >They're also dumping hundreds of billions of usa bonds First off, no, they aren't: http://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt http://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt Second: how, exactly, would that work? For the millionth time you cannot sell without a buyer. So if China is "dumping", someone else is buying. Or do you think they're just lighting these bonds on fire? Guess who wins in that scenario. Hint: not China. You know, there's so much controversy about "fake news" lately, but the reality is that people will seek out the stories that fit their narrative, rather than looking at the data. Nobody to blame but ourselves.
  - tossedaway334 10y ago
    If you owe the bank $1000 dollars, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank $1 billion dollars, you own the bank.
- linkregister 10y ago
  This is well-reported in The Economist, Bloomberg, WSJ. The Chinese government is shoring up its currency due to capital injections in its SOEs and banks. This isn't like the mid-1990s dump of the Rupiah; there isn't a malicious aspect to it. If it somehow were malicious, it would be pathetic because the U.S. dollar has increased in value over that time period.
SixSigma 10y ago
> It's pretty likely this is a shove-back for Trump aggravating China over Taiwan. [Citation needed] Is this Trump's fault too ? Obama administration files trade challenge against China Thursday, December 15, 2016 10:48 AM EST WASHINGTON (AP) - Amid new tensions with China, the Obama administration on Thursday launched its 15th challenge against Beijing at the Word Trade Organization, escalating a long-simmering debate over practices that U.S. officials say limit American farmers' ability to export rice, wheat and corn to the Asian powerhouse.
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/16/politics/chinese-warship-underwater-drone-stolen/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/16/politics/chinese-warship-under... > Although it's unclear what the motivation was for the Chinese, the seizing of the drone comes on the heels of other provocative incidents that have happened since President-elect Donald Trump received a congratulatory call with Taiwan's President, a violation of the US's agreement with China's "One China policy". China publicly voiced their disapproval of that incident and contacted the White House at the time.
  - SixSigma 10y ago
    Oh, CNN. Not a credible source, that's just editorializing. Can you quote a member of the Chinese govt. saying so ? "Motives unclear" yeah ok, must be Trump's fault.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      Are you saying CNN isn't a credible source?
      - elefanten 10y ago
        It's been something of a trope on the (alt)right to rip on CNN. It's up there with NYT and WaPo in terms of ire drawn. Specifically, the news clip of a CNN anchor saying its illegal to read WikiLeaks is often held up as some trump card that CNN is has lost 100% credibility on everything.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jsnathan 10y ago
Less likely about Trump, and more likely about the 'freedom of navigation' exercises the U.S. has been conducting in the same general area - something which these sailors would be acutely aware of, and which they may well feel the desire to 'shove-back' on. Not to say it can't be both.
- whybroke 10y ago
  Direct theft of hardware, however, is distinct escalation. The US's 'freedom of navigation' exercises have going on for quite some time.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  I really doubt that such on-the-spot adventurism is tolerated in the Chinese Navy. against a commercial ship this could be plausible but against a navy vessel belonging to another country? If you were the captain of a Chinese Navy ship, would you want to be summoned to Beijing to explain why President Xi had unexpectedly received a nastygram from Washington? Perhaps you are right and I'm misinterpreting early versions of the story, but my impression is that the Chinese military values conformity and command structures rather than spontaneity and initiative. Centralization and respect for hierarchy are hallmarks of Chinese culture.
anigbrowl 10y ago
I had to giggle at the bit in the story where the US ship sent a signal to complain as the Chinese one sailed off and the Chinese acknowledged receipt but didn't reply. Naval protocol is a funny thing; the sea is bigger than any country and it's not hard to picture the personnel on both ships being polite and professional to each other even as an act of piracy took place, because it was directed from elsewhere. It's a bit like professional diplomats delivering notices of a state of war and then shaking hands as they bid each other farewell.

arethuza 10y ago

Reminds me of Operation Barmaid where a UK nuclear submarine used cutters to steal a towed array from a Warsaw-pact vessel: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9602103/HMS-Conquerors-biggest-secret-a-raid-on-Russia.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9602103/HMS-C...

ljf 10y ago
Excellent article. And similarly in this case - what was the 'drone' doing so close to their ship? What spying were they hoping to achieve?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

sandworm101 10y ago

The lines between 'took', 'let go' and 'gave' are blurred. I wouldn't take and story abour the loss of an intelegence asset at face value.

Johnny555 10y ago
The lines between 'took', 'let go' and 'gave' are blurred. Is this less blurry: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/12/16/china-steals-us-underwater-drone-in-south-china-sea.html http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/12/16/china-steals-us-unde... "We call upon China to return our [unmanned underwater vehicle] immediately, and to comply with all of its obligations under international law," Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook responded.

nullnilvoid 10y ago

What were the drones doing in South China Sea? If anybody sends a drone in my backyard, I would shoot it down righteously.

mr_spothawk 10y ago
they were doing what drones everywhere do... "measuring" with "sensors".
JamilD 10y ago
The drone was operating in international waters. And despite the name, only a small part of the South China Sea is in China's Exclusive Economic Zone. Much of the sea is closer to other countries (like the Philippines and Vietnam), but China lays unilateral claim to many of the uninhabited islands. edit: A map, for reference: http://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/5464160/data/south-china-sea-map-slide-5-data.jpg http://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/5464160/data/south-china-sea-map...
- jwtadvice 10y ago
  This is one interpretation of a widely disputed issue. Many people like to underwrite this opinion with the Hague Tribunal findings, but unfortunately UNCLOS itself (article 299) states that it has no authority to decide territorial cases. In any case, the claims to the islands in the South China Sea are hardly unilateral, as the United States recognized many of them including the Paracels and Scarborough during the Potsdam Declaration, Cairo Declaration, San Fransisco Treaty and others (at the time motivated to punish the imperial Japanese at the end of WWII). Hell the Cairo Declaration even declared Manchuria and Taiwan as owned by China. It's funny what the American media bubble does to history.
  - jwtadvice 10y ago
    For the person/persons downvoting this, can you explain how it does not contribute to the conversation? I'm being very factual and on topic. If you'd like, we can go over the text of UNCLOS, Cairo and Potsdam Declarations and SF Treaty.

godmodus 10y ago

Lol

BugsJustFindMe 10y ago

Background: I used to work on these UUVs. When CNN says "oceanographic research", what they actually mean is building a sonar ray caustics model of the environment, because sound bends just like light does when the medium transmission speed changes, and the speed of sound in water changes noticably with depth,salinity,temperature. When CNN says "unclear motivation", what they mean is that the motivation is actually pretty clear. China doesn't like that the US is building underwater surveillance infrastructure in their backyard.

nullnilvoid 10y ago
It is very clear that the US is trying to spy on China. I don't blame China for taking the drones. If Russia sends drones to Hawaii, the US will take them too.
- MrZongle2 10y ago
  The drone was operating in international waters. How, then, is China justified in taking it? Isn't that simply theft? It would have been another thing entirely if the drone were operating within Chinese territory.
  - roywiggins 10y ago
    In international waters? I'd call it piracy.
    - Brockenstein 10y ago
      And pirates are pretty cool...
    - Brockenstein 10y ago
      And pirates are pretty cool...
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      It can only be piracy if done for private ends. Done on behalf of a government, it's simply an act of war.

brilliantcode 10y ago

Going forward this will be a critical test of US status in the region and set a precedent for the incoming administration on dealing with China. So far, the US has been unwilling to engage China directly, only using proxy countries to apply pressure, ex. THAAD. It has been highly effective and unless China takes direct action that harms American naval & airforce assets, it's unwilling to engage in a downright skirmish that results in economic loss. Following that previous logic, China is very careful about not kicking the honet's nest because it would be it's end. The Chinese leadership must know fully well that they cannot match the US militarily. Also given Xi's failing grades on foreign diplomacy, it's suffice to conclude that these grandiose rhetorics are entirely aimed at it's own population, who are reaching a boiling point that will ultimately put into uncertainty the survivability of Xi's powerbase and the entire party itself. Xi made too many enemies so he's looking for ways to survive by fighting fire with fire and creating more enemies from within. An internal dialogue fueling crisis with the US is a perfect propaganda tool and the fear of war, the fear of losing your properties, belongings, material possessions you've spent time on...history has shown is highly effective in controlling the populace.

noir_lord 10y ago
> Following that previous logic, China is very careful about not kicking the honet's nest because it would be it's end The US would win a conventional war but it would be bloody and expensive in both life and material. Neither side wants that, China wants to get to a point where it's strong enough that fighting the US would be incredibly expensive and the US wants to maintain a position where it's strong enough to deter China from doing whatever China wants to do, it's a strange world when the US's largest trading partner is in a cold war style stand off.
- woofyman 10y ago
  How can 2 nuclear powers fight a conventional war?
  - noir_lord 10y ago
    Theoretically by not pushing the other one so hard that they'd go nuclear but it would be tap dancing on a cliff edge the whole way. The 'traditional' way for nuclear powers to fight a 'war' is via Proxy wars (Vietnam, middle eastern wars etc).

mrfusion 10y ago

Could this be an instance of "fake news"?

anigbrowl 10y ago
Perhaps, but you should identify what you consider to be false or propagandistic about it, otherwise you are just trying to cause confusion rather than get at the truth, and that's rude to the other people here. As they say on examination papers: give reasons for your answer.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

finid 10y ago

Reminds of that time when the US sent a sub to tap a Soviet underwater communication cable off the cost of the then Soviet Union. That was brazen, and bad. It was the kind of stuff that leads to war. What the Chinese just did is just as bad, and could lead to war.

squozzer 10y ago

We should expect little games like this, as it reveals China's technical inferiority - otherwise, why steal something if you already have something better? I'm more interested in their clain on Taiwan -- is it the island (Formosa) or its inhabitants (the descendants of Kai-shek) that they claim? Claiming the island at least has a logic that one can support or deny. Claiming the inhabitants, well then every country with an ethnic Chinese population - e.g. Indochina, San Francisco -- might well be at risk.

beambot 10y ago

Curious nautical legal question: How does recovery (salvage / claims) work for an unmanned drone in international waters -- couldn't you draw analogies to any 'ole piece of salvageable junk? In which case, couldn't anyone lay claim to it...?