Pentagon: Chinese Ship Captures US Underwater Drone Fom Sea (usatoday.com) 406
The Pentagon is demanding that China return an "unlawfully seized" underwater drone after a Chinese warship took the device from waters near a US oceanographic vessel. From a report on USA Today: A U.S. Navy underwater drone operating in international waters was captured by a Chinese warship in the South China Sea, Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook said in a statement on Friday. The drone is not armed and is used for gathering weather and temperature data. The incident occurred Thursday. The drone was launched by the USNS Bowditch, a civilian crewed oceanographic ship that is operated by the Military Sealift Command, off the coast of the Philippines. These types of drones, called gliders, typically collect unclassified data, such as water temperatures and salinity levels. "We call upon China to return our UUV immediately, and to comply with all of its obligations under international law," Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said in a statement, using the abbreviation for "unmanned underwater vehicle."
Time for war (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No chance. China needs the US to export its goods here. Loss of exports -> unemployment -> social unrest.
Re:Time for war (Score:4, Insightful)
The social unrest is already boiling just below the surface and their economic bubble is about to burst. This is why they're sabre rattling and egging on a conflict. It's a classic move from their playbook. They know a hot war is unlikely.
Re: (Score:3)
A war could help them economically especially if overpopulation is a problem for them. You can't be poor, unemployed, or homeless if you are dead.
I know that it sounds terrible but there really isn't any other way to have a sudden reduction in population.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well mao zedong and pol pot would prolly disagree wit ya.
Re: (Score:3)
Superpowers can't go to war directly. If they do, everyone loses in massive nuclear attack, and all sides know it. That's why the idea of a cold war was invented - a struggle for power by espionage and proxy wars.
Re:Time for war (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, attacking a capturing US equipment in international waters changes the whole evaluation of the likelihood of a hot war. We simply can't tolerate this behavior. They have to give it back, apologize, and stop trying to claim new areas of the Pacific to avoid war. And that isn't going to happen. The only question at this point is, are we going to stick to a cold war? One of the reasons that the historical Cold War stayed cold was that both sides realized that certain actions required a response, and both sides quietly didn't do those things. China seems unaware of how that works.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Time for war (Score:5, Interesting)
This is what a slow motion train wreck looks like.
The Chinese will want the United States and Trump to lose face because of what Trump said about Taiwan. Because Obama is still in power, Trump will make fun of him for being a weakling in his response to China, whatever it is. Then, once Trump becomes President, he will have to respond in a way that escalates the problem, to differentiate himself from the "weak" Obama. China will do more of these types of actions to make Trump lose face. Trump will continue to escalate the crisis by tweeting insults to China, because Trump will rather start a war than lose face. Add to this the fact that the Chinese government needs to distract its population from its own failures and corruption, and what is better to do that than a potential war with the United States? This is a perfect storm of stupid, needless crisis, and it will end very badly.
Re: (Score:2)
Zero chance.
The US bombed their embassy (on the claimed of "bad map") and there has not been a war. China probably just had a bad map too.
Besides, do you still remember how the Iraq War, Vietnam War and the Korea War ended up like?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember that China has been unsuccessful in keeping ANY of its friends around for long other than North Korea which is very telling. Look back over the last 65 years. They've flirted with Russia and then bit the hand...and India....and Vietnam....and now the US...etc.
If there is any kind of hot war, China will be alone since they have proven they cannot be trusted. The instant they are engaged in any real conflict, all their domestic issues will come home to roost...Tibet, Xinjiang,Taiwan, etc.
China w
Re: (Score:3)
So, yeah.... actually the US does shit like this all the time. Are you suggesting that only the US can do it and all other countries must bow before their US masters?
Face it man, the world is changing. The US, like it or not, is on the decline. Countries like China and Russia smell the blood in the water and are getting ready.
Of course, when an animal is dying is when it can be the most dangerous. Thus, i would think that the world is actually closer to a hot war than at any time since ww2.
Re: (Score:3)
We did with North Korea (ship captured). We did with Cuba (U2). We did with Russia (U2 again). We did with Iran (drone).
It looks very much like we CAN tolerate it.
China knows it can keep on pushing and get away with it based on what has happened in the past.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the US should do that, and also re-occupy everything that has a US base during WWII, including military occupation of the Spratly's, and we should have THAAD protection for not only the Spratly's but everywhere within 1000 miles of China.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe this would be a good time to rearm Japan. I suspect that would give China something to think about.
From recent articles I have read, Japan is pretty heavily armed already. But until recently, they could only use those weapons for self-defense.
According to this article, the new Japanese Prime Minister and his allies in goverment want to change their constitution to give them more power to use that military might. https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
Re: Time for war (Score:3)
Last time Japan fought China, they were literately putting babies on spikes. Probably ate a few babies, too.
Japan is fucked up. We need to be really really certain before we loose that monster. And lest we forget, we nuked them. Twice.
Re: (Score:3)
The social unrest is already boiling just below the surface and their economic bubble is about to burst.
A lot of Chinese are seething, and it is not just about the slowing overall economy. Many are angry about the Hokou System [wikipedia.org] of hereditary castes that dispossess hundreds of millions of people, and deny them access to education, health-care, housing, etc. They also have tens of millions of young men with no hope of finding a wife and starting a family.
This is why they're sabre rattling and egging on a conflict. It's a classic move from their playbook.
They tried that in 1966. More than 2 million people died, and their economy was set back by a decade.
They know a hot war is unlikely.
It is easy to generate national outrage by blaming outs
Re:Time for war (Score:5, Funny)
In America, we call those, "gamers".
Re:Time for war (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be mutually assured economic destruction. Now, that being said, you may still be right, we just need to be ready for the consequences.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
All we have to do is tell Russia that China stole our remote-controlled boat. Putin will be like "well obviously you need to start a trade war and re-position your global manufacturing industries". Putin understands that remote-controlled boats are serious business.
Re:Are you joking?? (Score:3)
Seriously, you must be joking. I am not sure if you are aware of this or not, but in the US, you don't make shit. Sure, you design stuff, but you produce all your shit in China and other 3rd and 2nd world countries.
And you think blocking incoming goods would not lose jobs? If you are not making shit, then what are most of you doing? Oh yeah... selling shit. If there is no shit to sell and no shit to buy then there is no need to have a job selling shit. No need to have a job designing shit either since you c
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely agree. China stole our remote-controlled boat. The least we should do is cut off trade between the two largest economies in the world. Remote-controlled boats are serious business.
Re:Time for war (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just the one of a long sequence of clearly illegal actions. Maybe this is not the last straw but it's certainly a very bold one. This is in international waters no matter that they added fake islands and 9 dashes to map.
Re: Time for war (Score:5, Interesting)
This is just the one of a long sequence of clearly illegal actions.
Why, because it violates the UN convention that governs autonomous vessels in international waters? Here's why I think it's a non-issue: if it's a civilian/research drone, the Chinese got nothing. If it's a military/intelligence drone with features or aspects that are classified... well, all is fair in love and war.
But rest assured, we are at war (as we always have been).
Re: Time for war (Score:5, Interesting)
"China is very sensitive about unmanned underwater vehicles because they can track our nuclear ballistic missile submarines fleet," said retired Major General Xu Guangyu, a senior researcher at Beijing-based research group the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association. "If one from the Bowditch can be detected and even snatched by a Chinese naval ship, it shows it's getting too close to the sensitive water areas."
America clearly came out ahead in this (Score:3)
America is the clear winner in this. Chinese steal a drone exploration watercraft 50 mi. off the coast of the Philippines in an act no better than common criminal pirates.
Who looks desperate and pathetic as hell?
We lost a drone. They confirm that they are major loser thugs for the world to witness.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Bush, Cheney etc didn't think ahead when they approved torturing folks.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't be serious. They trespass into Japan's territorial waters on a regular basis. They threaten Taiwan. The heavily bombed Taiwan islands twice. They declared the air zone in international airspace to impose that other aircraft inform them. Their claims are outrageous.
Then there is Xinjiang where they basically crushed the peaceful, indigenous people there, imposing brutal, dehumanizing regulations and conditions upon them. Same thing in Tibet.
Chinese are fucked. Their argument that their total
Re: (Score:2)
We're going to war! [youtube.com]
Re:Time for war (Score:5, Funny)
It won't work. China built a Wall.
Re: (Score:3)
But did the Mongols pay for it?
Almost seems destiny (Score:2)
Almost seems like destiny that we're going to clash with them. Historically, handing the batton of world's greatest power from one nation to another rarely goes smoothly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Almost seems destiny (Score:5, Funny)
That's what winners do.
They grab what they want.
By the pussy.
Re:Almost seems destiny (Score:5, Interesting)
That would be better as a Haiku.
That's what winners do
They grab whatever they want
Grab by the pussy
Re: (Score:3)
The baton has not been passed/grabbed since the beginning of the nuclear age. We live in "Interesting Times," I fear.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And they are going to get us to honor our debt how exactly?
Like everything else China does, dumping U.S. debt into the open market.
Re: (Score:2)
That would crush their economy far worse than ours.
Our government survives recessions. If they don't show significant growth each year (and much of that is fueled by foreign investment), their people would no longer tolerate the draconian restrictions under which they live. When you talk with ordinary Chinese people, they know all about the freedoms the rest of the world has, but they also know that most established Western nations who have those freedoms see 1-2% annual economic growth versus 6-8% (after r
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the thing.
If I owe you, I owe YOU (that's the U in IOU).
I don't recognize your legal right to say I owe someone else because you "sold" them "my debt (which was to you remember)". Screw that.
If you sold them that, good on you for ripping them off.
Also, if I'm the US, as long as I have the nukes, I ain't paying. Get used to it. Why did you lend me the money in the first place?
It was because the money you lent sits in a secure economy protected by nukes (and relative political stability).
That still doe
Re: (Score:3)
Also, if I'm the US, as long as I have the nukes, I ain't paying.
The Chinese have nukes. They also have a larger population (1.3B people vs. 360M). If a nuclear exchange took place, the Chinese are more likely to survive. Also, the Russians wouldn't appreciate nukes being blown in their backyard and may toss a few back at the U.S. But, go ahead, keep waving your Johnson and prove to the world that Americans are stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure you understand how government bonds work, among other things. I recommend reading this.
http://www.investopedia.com/ar... [investopedia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They own less than 10% of US debt.
If the Chinese government dumps U.S. debt into the open market, it would be a vote of no confidence and increase the borrowing cost for U.S. taxpayers. This is why Chinese officials are always astonished when U.S. presidents make demands rather than come with hat in hand.
Re:Almost seems destiny (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it difficult to imagine any scenario that makes China the "world's greatest power."
Then you have the imagination of a turnip. You literally cannot imagine a scenario in which the nation with the largest population in the world and a GDP on track to surpassing the USA in around 10 years could become the world's greatest power? I'm not saying any of this is certain, or even likely, but not even being able to imagine the possibility is dumbfounding.
Re:Almost seems destiny (Score:5, Insightful)
There are, sadly, many people in the US that cannot see the US as anything other than the world's greatest country, in everything, and that it will continue to be the greatest until the end of time. It's a fantasy that they can't see past and refuse to even try. The US has not been the leader in many categories for some time and we're the leader is some categories that we really don't want to be, such as highest percentage of population in prison. These people are not only sad, they're dangerous to the continued survival of the country as we can't fix problems that we refuse to see or acknowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's like 6 year old stuff, man. I mean, WTF is "greatest" anyways? That's like arguing over whose Favorite Color is the Bestest Favorite Color.
Yes, people who think "greatest" is something they can talk about outside of personal opinion are fucking idiots. No need to single out Americans. ;)
Is it dangerous? No, they're just idiots bloviating. I'm sure they see their opinions as important, but I really doubt anybody making an important decision about anything is going to turn to them for advice.
Re: (Score:2)
There are, sadly, many people in the US that cannot see the US as anything other than the world's greatest country, in everything, and that it will continue to be the greatest until the end of time.
This.
All empires fall eventually. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Almost seems destiny (Score:4, Funny)
If you see people you disagree with as having the mental capacity of a turnip, you might only have made it to cabbage yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Just in terms of military spending, China is #2 in the world. They spend 36% as much as we do.
Our spending over twice what they do might sound reassuring, but we have to factor in waste. There's always waste, but waste in US procurement waste is epic due to pork barrel spending -- which China as a non-democracy doesn't have. Think how much more the F35 program costs us because it has been distributed to practically every congressional district in the country. Imagine how that program might be different
Re:Almost seems destiny (Score:4, Funny)
I agree. Look at Zimbabwe - absolutely no corruption there. You don't get officials handing contracts to companies owned by their cousins or any of that shit.
Re:Almost seems destiny (Score:5, Insightful)
It has the largest population, the largest military and the largest industry. It's busy making strategic investments around the world and territorial claims. It's investing huge sums on science and engineering to make up for any technological lag.
I wouldn't like to bet against China being the dominant world power by the end of the century, whether I like it or not. Mostly not.
Activate Self-Destruct! (Score:5, Funny)
Tell me you DID give it a self-destruct
Sailor1: Sir, we captured an American underwater drone!
Officer: Throw it back! QUICK! It's a self service torpedo...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they? It's not a munition, or a surveillance drone. It's an ocean survey drone, gathering temperature and salinity measurements. There's nothing secret on it, the technology is well-known. It's just China asserting their authority in the South China Sea again: They have to occasionally do something like this just to remind the US that they claim ownership of that area and are willing to protect it with force.
Glomar Explorer (Score:5, Insightful)
If you kids don't remember the Glomar Explorer,
it's about time you googled it.
Those Chinese ain't stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSF_Explorer [wikipedia.org]
Non story (Score:5, Informative)
Of course China will return it.
Right after they take it apart, photograph its parts, map all its PCB traces, identify all the parts, copy its firmware and reassemble it (that last part is optional).
And in a year at most the US can buy a comparable version at half the cost from China.
Same thing happened when that US spy plane had to make an emergency landing awhile back (after colliding with a Chinese fighter jet). China returned the plane, in crates. I hear the crew threw all the sensitive stuff out while the plane was over the water.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course China will return it. Right after they take it apart, photograph its parts, map all its PCB traces, identify all the parts, copy its firmware and reassemble it (that last part is optional). And in a year at most the US can buy a comparable version at half the cost from China.
Scrolled too far for this.
Re:Non story (Score:4, Insightful)
I heard that the crew was unable to destroy most of the sensitive electronics onboard. Ditching the electronics would likely be pretty difficult unless it was designed for easy disassembly for the application of hammers and etching acid.
As people may recall, the Chinese fighter jet was harassing an unarmed spy plane flying over international waters when the fighter pilot overestimated his skill and/or the distance between the two planes.
The current incident is more bold in that it was intended to be an international incident, while the 2001 collision became an international incident at the moment of impact.
It is unfortunate that Democrats have to clean up Trump's messes before he even takes office.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this just some boring more or less off-the-shelf research widget that any university with an oceanography team has an equivalent of on the shelf(in which case messing with it is presumably pure posturing)? Or is there something onboard worth doing a bit of reverse
Re: (Score:3)
They should pack in a few dozen thermite grenades into those planes so when they are forced down they can just torch it if necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh god, that hurt. That is so racist and funny all at the same time.
Re: (Score:3)
There's nothing much in there worth getting. It's a survey drone.
Dear China... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Dear China... (Score:5, Funny)
Hmmmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
After reading various books on the history of the CIA, I am a bit skeptical when we report a civilian vessel doing scientific research is captured by another country.
If this drone only measures temperature and salinity, whats the big deal beyond the cost? They will give it back eventually. Perhaps in ( pieces [wikipedia.org]).
Captures? (Score:2)
What is chinese for .... ? (Score:2)
Some helpful context: (Score:5, Insightful)
Thus, from the Chinese point of view, the drone was likely a) spying on their military bases being built on one of the islands they are expanding and b) doing so from within waters they claim as their own.
From the US point of view, a) they were operating in what is still internationally recognized as either international waters or waters controlled by their Philippine allies. and b) getting the closest possible look at the military installations a major power was building, which are responsible for a major change in the balance of tensions in the region. (One can easily argue that these efforts by the Chinese government are deliberately provocative)
As a final note; I do not believe for one moment that the drone deployed by the US navy only gathers such non-classified data the article mentions. Drones are primarily intelligence gathering platforms after all, not science research vessels. If I were developing, deploying and operating multi-million dollar drones in an area currently under a great deal of military and economic tensions, I'd be loading that drone with every type of sensor, (active and passive) that I could possibly fit in its hull. Given the current tensions, I'd be using only its passive sensors to be sure. I wouldn't want my drone getting caught. The best intelligence, after all, is the intelligence the opponent doesn't even know you have. But I'd be certainly doing more than measuring temperatures and salinity. My primary interest would probably be using passive sonar to *thoroughly* map the sea bottom and gps/ inertial tracking to chart how the Chinese construction was affecting the local currents and thermocline depths. Should hostilities ever break out, such detailed knowledge of the area would make finding and combating submarines much easier as well as giving my own subs the tools they need to maximise their own efforts at hiding.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They are still clearly International Waters, when everyone except China accepts them as so.
A country gets 50 miles of water from its coast. Little island outposts don't expand that.
Re:Some helpful context: (Score:5, Informative)
First off, as far as I know, all measurements are determined from the low tide water line(s)
Second, most treaties and decisions are based on Nautical Miles, leading to much confusion on the part of laymen, especially if they are converting from metric kilometres to miles and neglect to distinguish between nautical and statute measurements.
Third; there are several basic levels of control over waters:
a) Internal waters (bays and rivers, no right of innocent passage by third parties)
b)Territorial waters (12 NM from low tide line, nation must allow innocent passage but all laws of nation are in effect)
c) archipelagic waters, (baseline drawn from outermost points of peninsulas and and islands. Nation is completely sovereign, but must allow innocent passage AND traditional fishing rights of neighbouring countries.
d) Contiguous zone (measured another 12 NM out beyond the territorial waters. (only customs, taxation, pollution and immigration laws are in effect)
e) Exclusive Economic zone. (TWO HUNDRED NM out from baseline, nation has exclusive rights to exploit all natural resources in the area except where already covered by Contiguous Zone.) and finally
f) Continental Shelf 200 miles from baseline OR to the natural edge of the geologic feature WHICHEVER IS GREATER, to a maximum of 350 NM. Nation has rights to resources attached to, or below, the sea bottom in this area.
What China appears to be doing is building artificial islands in what previously had been international waters. If it can get tacit or explicit acceptance from the international community that China is sovereign on those islands, that will allow China to dramatically expand its control in the region based on the archipelagic rule, which in turn will expand its exclusive economic zone. Remember that there is a clear difference between de facto and de jure sovereignty. The Permanent Court of Arbitration can only rule on de jure and historically, de jure sovereignty has always been secondary to de facto sovereignty. Thus, China does not need international acceptance in order to gain de facto sovereignty. By building the islands and providing military and border patrols, it already has that.
Permanent Court of Arbitration legal ruling (Score:2, Insightful)
The article doesn't mention this, but I know it's been posted on Slashdot before, large swathes of the South China Sea are no longer clearly International Waters as the current article implies. For a couple of years now, China has been building artificial islands in the region. [...]
Yup, and it has been ruled by the Permanent Court of Arbitration that those artificial islands do nothing to change the claims of China:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_v._China
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Court_of_Arbitration
Re: (Score:3)
Often times these drones are tested that way. They don't carry anything classified but are operated in risk areas.
If they get detected or captured, then the Navy knows the limits of the equipment - yet won't lose data or face in the process.
If at the same time you get can useful data for scientists, that's cool.
Re: (Score:3)
Drones are primarily intelligence gathering platforms after all, not science research vessels.
"Drones" are what the public has learned to refer to "umanned aerial vehicles" by. The term is no longer limited to military remotely operated aircraft. That DJI Phantom 3 you just bought; the $100 FPV quad; both are "drones" to the public. That cat is long out of the bag, a fight long lost.
As such, it is much easier for the press to refer to "an underwater drone" than to try teaching the public what "autonomous underwater vehicle" means. That's what they did here.
So no, "drones" are no longer primarily "
Bad citizens of the world (Score:3)
Is it wrong to be suspicious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it wrong I'm suspicious as to the actual nature of this drone? I mean, sure; it makes perfect sense for it to be doing what they say it was. However, it's equally possible it's gathering military intelligence.
I don't trust either country involved. although I don't know why China would waste their time on a meteorological drone.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or cutting/tapping fibre-optic cables.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you are wrong. There is nothing sinister or illegal about gathering military intelligence in international waters.
Re: (Score:2)
So yes, I'm wrong to be suspicious that the stated purpose of the drone is not the actual purpose of the drone because....the stated purpose of the drone may not be the actual purpose?
Want to try that again?
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong because your suspicions are not relevant. Why are you trying to blame the victim and lose sight of the real issue?
Re: (Score:2)
So I wasn't wrong, necessarily, you just didn't like my question.
Interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't anybody's business what it was doing there.
The US does do military intelligence in international waters. That is a legit activity that China also does.
Get over yourself, international waters aren't a pacifist zone. This was literal piracy. Nobody cares if you "trust" the victim of theft. If an awful naughty person has their stuff stolen, guess what? Their perceived awfulness does nothing to change the nature of the theft.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy cowboy, you are making quite a few assumptions. I was just questioning the official story, which it seems you are as well.
I honestly don't care that China stole it, or what it was doing in the first place. I'm sure this kind of nonsense goes on all the time.
I just don't trust the official story is all.
LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
Good thing the Pentagon has an unblemished record of never claiming anything to not have military purpose that wasn't a lie. That record of honesty will give their word a lot of weight when they are in the right like this.
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of the drone (military or not) has no relevance since it was in military waters.
Cover up. (Score:2, Informative)
So, it was a spy UUV.
Re: (Score:2)
MSC are meant to be all about transportation for resupply.
It does seem odd that a resupply group are supposedly interested in water temperatures and salinity levels, but it seems even more unlikely that particular branch would be spying.
We need to become independent of China (Score:2)
China grabs islands, and steals our drone, because they can get away with it.
Suppose Taiwan declared independence. China would probably tell us, "If you support the declaration, we'll stop selling you the electronic goods that we make."
We need to make up a list of all important items (electronics etc.) that we buy from China. Then write laws that will result in those items being made in the US.
Last Wednesday, Trump met with IT leaders. I'd guess part of the meeting had to do with manufacturing in the US. I
Research drone (Score:2)
We were simply collecting data on the effects of ocean environments on deadly pathogens. You guys didn't actually open or touch that drone in any way?
Re:heres the operative sentence (Score:5, Informative)
The South China Sea is, contrary to what you might expect from the name, not chinese territory except for small parts. It is mostly international waters.
Re:heres the operative sentence (Score:5, Informative)
The South China Sea is not all China's territorial waters. Even they don't even claim all of it. Some of the parts they DO claim are closer to other countries than they are China, making those claims pretty ludicrous, IMO.
Re: (Score:3)
I from the US, so I might be biased, but it sounds more like China is pretending they own the street in front of their house and grabbed our RC car as we drove it down the street. If we drove into their yard, yeah, they'd be justified, but pretty much the everybody but China agrees that the street doesn't belong to them.
Re: (Score:2)
When you're talking the South China Sea, there are two territorial boundaries to consider. Was this the boundary that the international community, except China, acknowledges as their territory or the imaginary boundary that China claims as its territory on shoddy 'historical' evidence that just happens to encompass large theoretical reserves of oil?
Now, if the drone does exactly as claimed, then it is harmless. However, if I was the Chinese, I wouldn't be willing to take the US Navy's word for it and woul
Re:heres the operative sentence (Score:5, Informative)
The map in the article suggests it was confiscated just off the coast of the Philippines in Subic Bay - the Chinese were way outside their territorial waters on this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
International waters is not synonymous with anarchy zone. There are undersea cables in international waters, that doesn't make them fair game for people wanting to steal them.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares? In international water the drone can do whatever it wants.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the ol' Bush Jr. blame it on Saddam play.
Re: (Score:2)
It belongs to China, it even has the word China in it.
New Mexico?