
Chinese warship stole US underwater drone - nmc
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/16/politics/chinese-warship-underwater-drone-stolen/index.html
======
BugsJustFindMe
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.

~~~
anigbrowl
The fact that this has military applications as well as scientific/commercial
ones doesn't bother me. They were firmly in international rather than disputed
waters, I'm pretty sure other countries eyeball our ocean shelf too and it
doesn't bother me either.

To be honest I don't think China cares all that much either because they're
used to the US Navy sailing about as a reminder of our treaties with various
other SE Asian countries. They're veen assertive about their territorial
claims with the nine-dash line, the building of artificial islands (reportedly
now weaponized), and rejecting the decision of the international maritime
court recently. Overall I'd characterize relations between the Chinese
government and the Obama administration as cool but respectful.

I don't know what's happening with the incoming administration and don't want
to make a political argument here, but I do think that _publicizing_ the fact
of the conversation between Trump and the Taiwanese President, along with the
public questioning of the One China policy, probably seems like a huge loss of
face for Beijing. China doesn't mind the US having relations, even friendship,
with Taiwan - through private channels. Public recognition of the Taiwanese
government as a sovereign entity by the US is insulting though - much as if
Premier Xi in China started having friendly chats with the governor of Hawai'i
or Alaska while publicly pouring scorn on DC.

Edit: great username btw

~~~
lacampbell
_China doesn 't mind the US having relations, even friendship, with Taiwan -
through private channels. Public recognition of the Taiwanese government as a
sovereign entity by the US is insulting though - much as if Premier Xi in
China started having friendly chats with the governor of Hawai'i or Alaska
while publicly pouring scorn on DC._

Except that is not analogous at all.

Taiwan is de facto Independent. It has its own currency, internationally
recognised passports, military, airspace and democratically elects its own
representatives. It has been de facto independent from China for almost 70
years. It never fell to maoism and as a result was spared the both the great
famine (Which killed more people than the Chinese civil war and Japanese
invasion combined) and the cultural revolution. It peacefully transitioned to
democracy over 20 years ago, around the time Chinese troops were killing
hundreds of civillians in Tian Nan Men square.

It is independent for all intents and purposes. Even PRC nationalists know
this, but they need to keep face by not admitting the truth.

~~~
Analemma_
I have several close friends from Taiwan, and visit Taipei every couple years.
When I go, just for kicks I always ask people how they feel about being part
of China. The answer has, invariably, been not just No, but an irritated hell
no. As you say, for all practical purposes Taiwan is independent- not just in
their government institutions but in the psychology of the populace: they
_feel_ like a separate country, and nothing the PRC does can change that any
more than Americans could be convinced to "reunify" with the United Kingdom.

China is kidding themselves if they think reunification is going to happen.
It's certainly not going to happen voluntarily. And yeah, maybe they could
take the island by force, but even if they managed it and it didn't trigger an
international conflict, they'd just end up being another US-in-
Vietnam/Soviets-in-Afghanistan situation: a forced occupation of an angry,
resentful local population, which has no possible outcome other than eventual
costly withdrawal.

~~~
anigbrowl
That hasn't stopped them in Tibet. The fact that Taiwan is a smallish island
simplifies matters considerably, since China can easily impose a naval
blockade and wait for rebels to run out of munitions. Agreed it would work out
badly over the long term but strategically it's not hard.

------
arethuza
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-C...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9602103/HMS-
Conquerors-biggest-secret-a-raid-on-Russia.html)

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

------
crystalmeph
"[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.

~~~
homero
They're also dumping hundreds of billions of usa bonds

~~~
forgetsusername
> _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
If you owe the bank $1000 dollars, the bank owns you.

If you owe the bank $1 billion dollars, you own the bank.

------
finid
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
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
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...?

------
brilliantcode
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
> 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.

~~~
brilliantcode
It's tough to say who will win. After all, the Soviet Union pretty much won
WW2 with an enormous human sacrifice as much as the US likes to downplay it.

I agree two sides will do everything possible to avoid direct conflict just
like the Cold War.

~~~
zip1234
The US has an ocean between them and China. US power projection would be
tested and probably ultimately fail due to unbelievable expense of such a war
but China would not win unless you call not losing a win. Soviet Union could
take their land army straight to Germany but China has no way to project power
to US.

~~~
hguant
> US power projection would be tested and probably ultimately fail due to
> unbelievable expense

I think you're wrong here. The US has been investing in power projection for
80 some odd years now, and is leaps and bounds ahead of any other nation. Yes
it would be expensive...but we've been paying a premium for quite a long time
to have this capability. Additionally, the supply chain is drastically
shortened because of the sheer number of US or allied bases in the area -
Japan, South Korea, the Philippines (though that one has become a bit
questionable).

------
godmodus
Lol

------
mrfusion
Could this be an instance of "fake news"?

~~~
anigbrowl
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.

------
sandworm101
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
_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-
unde...](http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/12/16/china-steals-us-underwater-
drone-in-south-china-sea.html)

 _" 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._

