Chicoms target US recon flights

Bill Gertz:
China's air force planned to impose the controversial air defense identification zone several years ago to assert territorial control and counter U.S. aerial spying, defense officials tell Inside the Ring.

Internal Chinese military writings reveal that a nationwide air defense zone was under consideration as early as 2008 as part of China’s efforts to assert control over large areas of international waters in northeast Asia, the East China Sea and South China Sea.

One Chinese air force report said the main goal of the zone is to assert territorial claims and drive U.S. and Japanese reconnaissance aircraft away from the coast as part of an effort to protect military secrets.

The air force internal research paper from October 2008 stated that China needed a “national” air defense zone to secure China’s “territorial seas” to counter “constant, fierce contention” of the surrounding seas.

Another key element of the zone is to monitor and “drive away” U.S. reconnaissance aircraft that conduct frequent “spying and disruptive activities” along the coast.

Asked Wednesday what was behind the air defense zone, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said, “I don’t know.”

In 2001, a Chinese J-8 fighter crashed into a U.S. EP-3 surveillance aircraft flying some 70 miles off the Chinese coast, setting off a crisis for the new administration of President George W. Bush.

China held the 24-member EP-3 crew captive after it made an emergency landing on Hainan Island. The military then forced the Pentagon to cut up the aircraft for removal after closely examining the remaining spy gear on board.

Chinese air force efforts to conduct patrols and intercepts in the contested air defense zone extending nearly 100 miles into the Pacific are being watched closely by U.S. military intelligence monitors.
...
The broad claims attempt to rewrite international alw on territory claimed by countries.  They will probably lead to UN discussion of the claims and could lead to military confrontation with the US and others.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more