Message posted by Rocketfox on April 03, 2001 at 21:04:14 PST:
Not having seen the picture {i'm behind the curve on this one} but taking your word at what it shows. I agree, and here's why: Chinese Intel must have already seen the capabilities of Sat Intel, if nothing else, to have looked at the pics of A51 {therby being vaguely "on topic"} and extrapolated the capability of military Recon. Given that, and taking into account the usual "working towards the long view" of most of Chinese strategy, I admit to being somewhat distressed by the overtness of this event. Your first thought is right on the nose, if it was us we would have concealed the fact that we had taken apart said aircraft and looked it over, or at least controlled the media a bit better than this has been. The incident of the Mig that was flown to Japan comes to mind { we gave it back, eventually, but in boxed pieces after thorough examination}. For the Chinese to openly and blatantly advertise that they have violated International convention and the supposed soveriegnty of our aircraft suggests several thoughts. They don't care what they do, feeling that they are above international law { which does not bode well for the crew}. This concept, coming out of the old idea that they are the Middle Kingdom and therefore superior to everyone else in the world, is liable to blow up in thier faces as they meet the harsh reality of the word as it is today. Already there are repercussions stemming form this in thier standing in the world court of opinion is suffering as a result. Diplo-speak says the crew is being "detained" pending an apology. Not a good sign at all.. I would have expected the Chinese to be a bit more deft at this than they have been and a lot more subtle. thuis leads me to think that they have something up their copious sleeve that is not goig to be good news for the rest of us. At this point, about all we can to is wait and see how this all plays out. R*
In Reply to: Re: Photo shows no nose! posted by Magoo on April 03, 2001 at 20:26:43 PST:
Replies: