h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

With all what has been going on with this US spyplane in China, it seems to me that George 'Dubya' Bush wants to plunge the US back into another cold war. Since the major communist (that dreaded form of Government, hated by Congress and the Pentagon) country in the world is China, they seem the most likely candidate to have a war of nerves with.

So it's President Bush's fault that some hot dog Chinese fighter jock collided with the our "spy plane"? How did he cause that? Once our airmen are being held by a foreign power, what are we supposed to do, leave them there?

Dubya has, on more than one occasion, proven his ineptitude in handling international relations. He does not care to have his administration respect international treaties on ballistic missiles and environmental concerns. His arrogant handling of the spy plane affair demonstrates his insensitivity to delicate situations.
Thank god we have Colin Powell to calm the waters where Dubya has passed.

In my opinion, the spy plane incident was a tremendous faux pas. It was not really an international crisis.

If there is to be an international crisis during Bush's administration, it will likely be over the Star Wars missile 'defense' system. In my opinion, pursuing this is wildly stupid for a number of reasons.

1) It is too expensive. Even if you're determined to have such a system, it makes more sense to wait until it's cheaper. This is especially true since the US government is very much in debt.

2) Our best sources don't believe it can reasonably be done right now. Computers are not advanced enough to accurately target foreign missiles from space, especially when you factor in variables like cloud cover, day/night conditions, multiple targets, and so forth. Again, computers will advance naturally without funds from the US military.

3) Rather than providing an effective defense, Star Wars will only prompt an arms race among nations who want to subvert the system. Whether the arms race is 'won' or 'lost,' the development of so many weapons is bad news. Lord help us if the Star Wars project shows any signs of success. A foreign or terrorist body may decide to make a preemptive strike.

4) Even assuming Star Wars is a worthwhile idea, the US is the wrong country to build it. America is notoriously lousy at keeping military secrets (especially lately), and this would include the completed plans for Star Wars.

5) Going forward without the support of the internation community is like painting a big red target on the US. Remember, our enemies need only get one nuclear weapon through. And while we may be safe from missiles if Star Wars were completed, there are other delivery methods like battleships, submarines, and even transportation over land.

The NMD thing is useless because terrorists or 'rogue' states aren't going to use nukes, they'll use biological weapons which are cheaper, easier to get hold of and more reliable. Big countries like China, however much they complain and posture about NMD, have far too many warheads for it to have a chance.

But who am I to tell Americans how to spend their hard-earned money?

I would guess that the majority of Americans couldn't explain what Star Wars is supposed to do.

I fail to see how we overreacted with the spyplane deal. They were holding Americans hostage. The pilots were conducting legal operations over international waters. Then they were detained without legal cause. To me, that's pretty serious stuff. I really don't care about the place, but holding the airmen was criminal.

I'm not aware of any treaties on the enviroment or NMD that we have violated. The United States Senate voted against the Kyoto accord unanimously. We are trying to negotiate our way out of the ABM treaty. If we do decide to break the treaty, I think we've given fair warning of our intention.

There's a big difference between respecting a treaty and giving fair warning of one's intention to break it.
Bush, in his recent visit to Europe has basically said as follows to European leaders: "I won't support any treaties on global warming because there hasn't been enough scientific reasearch, but I will commit my nation's resources, in defiance of an international treaty, to the development of a missile defence system that is has been proven technologically infeasable by all tests to date."
I'm an American citizen, I know a good bit about Star Wars, and I'm worried. But we U.S. citizens who didn't want Bush for president (the majority of the population) cannot do anything about it. He can't be impeached for anything less than "high crimes and misdemeanors," and Bush certainly isn't doing anything illegal. All we can do is wring our hands as he makes a mess of everything.

Yes, they were holding a few Americans hostage. The legality of American's actions is (in my opinion) thoroughly beside the point. But for the sake of argument, let's say China did illegal things and America did no illegal things.

Are you comfortable killing numerous Chinese civilians over a few American hostages? How about losing the lives of American military men over the procedure? How do you feel about starting a massive war over the possession of a few men who have been kept in good health? Does the potential death of millions sound like a reasonable cost?

The possibly quick escalation of violence once it was begun was utterly unthinkable in this case, in my opinion. Of course, your mileage may vary. In my mind, there was little to do but use diplomacy to get our hostages back. In fact, there was never much doubt among the experts on China at the foreign affairs office that the hostages would be returned eventually.

China was simply using the hostages as leverage to get American diplomats and officials to say things that would allow the Chinese government to save face before its people. At first, our officials refused to do anything of the sort. Of course, they didn't want to lose face with American citizens either.

In the end, a compromise was reached. Careful phrases were crafted that would sound reasonable on both sides. The Chinese government wouldn't look too weak for giving up the hostages, and the American government wouldn't look too weak saying various things to get them back.

Really, the entire thing was an exercise in diplomacy for the relatively inexperienced Bush administration. A more experienced team would have understood how important it is for an Eastern culture to save face, and would have started out with signs of mutual respect instead of saber rattling. It was never an international crisis, in my opinion.

I think there is something that you can do about it. You will probably vote for your representative and one senator between now and the next presidential election. If you want to, I think you could have an impact through them. The Bush adminsitration has seemed to be fairly weak to me. They haven't really stood up for anything against any real pressure yet.

I'm not sure if NMD will work. I do think the ABM treaty is obsolete. The idea of a mexican standoff that can lead to the end of civilisation seemed absurd to me. Now I'm not even sure if it makes any kind of sense what so ever.

That's a bit of what concerns me. Dubya is very firm, rigid bordering on arrogant. I would like to see him making some informed decisions rather than toeing the party line.
You can bet I will vote.

With the Missile Defence thingy... If a 'rogue state' (i hate that term) knows they can't fire a missile, whats to stop them floating it in on a boat, or in a suitcase, or just driving it up to the white house? No stupid (technologically-impossible) laser beam can.

However, mutual trust, treaties, diplomacy and a rudimentary grasp of international relations can prevent all these things. Unfortunately seemingly what the moronic Mr. Bush seems to lack.

I wonder how well Bush and his administration would have coped if the tables had been turned. What I mean is how would they have handled the situation if a Chinese spyplane had been over for examples sake, the Pentagon?

Anyway, I thought the US has spy satellies. What do they need a spyplane for if they have a load of them?

Spy satellites are very good at visual images. They are not so good at receiving shortwave radio transmissions.

Here's what makes me wonder. If it's so easy to buy a nuclear weapon and take it whereever you want, and destroy the seat of power of the great satan. Why hasn't someone done it already?

Its not that easy. A nuke isn't the most easy thing to smuggle.

On teh subject of thsi spy plane, I may be wrong, but wasn't soem trouble started when the US demanded it back. To me, as an ignorant brit, the chinese should ahve returned the crew immediately, but lets face it, The US was caught spying and then they demanded to have the plane Returned. By the time it was returned china woudl ahve looked through everything taht wasn't efficiently destroyed by teh highly trained crew, so what did the US want, to show power, to recover bruised egos?

Thsi is actually a genuine question. i don't know too much and feel it needs clarification. Going to war over prisoners is overkill but laws have been violated, over an aircraft? Just a thing.

As an American citizen, I can only ask the world community to kill us all before the president embarrasses us again. You know you want to.

It wasn't really a spy plane. It was conducting reconnaissance. It was no secret that it was there. It was a clearly marked military aircraft operated by uniformed airmen in international airspace. There's nothing illegal about it.

Spying is gaining information through secretive means, generally by agents who aren't in uniform. Spying is technically illegal, and spies can be executed.


I don't really see what the big deal is with the plane either. It's only real value is as a token, and possibly for the purpose of determining how much information the Chinese gained.

Such planes are popularly referred to as 'spy planes' by the popular press, so most people echo the phrase. Officially, they are there taking photos and such. Unofficially, they are receiving (usually shortwave radio) transmissions from spies. The people on board are not spies. That's a common misconception.

The plane and its equipment is rather expensive. But the military could readily write it off if it wanted to. The US military budget is positively huge. As proof, the 18+ billion dollars recently requested as an *increase* of the military budget would represent 5% of the total budget for the US federal government.

Basically, China wanted to impose its own definition of where its national flight boundary ends, and the US wouldn't allow them to do that. China's argument was that if we don't respect the boundaries they have set, then they can keep the plane. Our counter argument was that their boundaries don't follow international space rules laid out by the United Nations or any other body, so we should get the plane back.

In the end, this was more a macho standoff than a real argument. There was no good reason for the situation to be escalated beyond the usual behind-the-scenes diplomacy that occurs when such snafus as military emergency landings take place. Unfortunately, both sides thought grandstanding before the press would make them look good. *sigh*

I dont see why America and GWB is being blamed for the EP-3 affair.

First off the EP-3 isnt a spy plane. Its role is Electronic survillance. I.e. analysising radar waves, radio transmissons and the like, to help jam the radar, and listen in on transmissons. Spying doesnt come into it. Survillance is the word. Taking Photos over other peoples airspace is techincally a spy plane, i.e. the Gary Powers incident with the U2. Damn those pesky high altitude SAMs.

Secondly the EP-3 was in International Airspace. It was in China's claimed EEZ, but this has no effect on right of free passage. If the EP-3 was within 12 nautical Miles of Mainland China, then by all rights the Chinese would have been in the right.

Thirdly the was/is a very good reason for the EP-3's to be there. China has recently brought 4 Sovermemy (SP) Guided Missile destroyers from Russia. They are, with the except of the Cruisers operated by the Russian Navy (namely the Kirov and Slava class) have the most deadly Anti Surface Warfare (ASuW) capability currently on the seas. Its supersonic, sea skimming missiles, whilst being 'dumbish', make the exocet threat faced in 1982 look like a feather duster. The EP-3 was monitoring the working up of the first of the Sovermmy's to analyze the radar, radio and other tranismmons. If you'd rather go into a potential fight not knowing your enemy you are bound to take more casualties than if you researched a bit more.

Fourthly, the collison was the Chinese fault. The EP-3 was on auto pilot at the time, and unable to make any 'reckless moves' towards the chinese F-8. Even so, this is a Supersonic jet fighter against a turboprop aircraft. It shouldnt have happened. Its all a question of Chinese incompentence and Recklessness. The F-8 was trying to 'bump' the EP-3, failed and as consquence, died for his actions. Let note that British and American Pilots were doing this to Russian Pilots from the 50's all the way up to the 90's. To my knowledge not one accident happened. THis is becuase not only were the Pilots invovled highly trained (both NATO and Russian Pilots), they also knew the rules to the 'game'.

Fifthly, the only time that the EP-3 violated ChiCom airspace, was to land, whilst hailing Mayday. After being crippled, to then be greviously assualted and held for no reason is 'uckin' stupid and unreasonable.

Sixthly, no one has ago at us brits who have a flight of Nimrods specially configured for ESM in the same vicinty to provide support for the Americans do they? All this is is simple and bad propganda for those who have something against bush.