Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
China United States Technology

Pentagon: Chinese Ship Captures US Underwater Drone Fom Sea (usatoday.com) 406

Posted by msmash from the terse-relationship dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pentagon: Chinese Ship Captures US Underwater Drone Fom Sea More

Pentagon: Chinese Ship Captures US Underwater Drone Fom Sea

Comments Filter:

  • Time for war (Score:5, Funny)

    by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Friday December 16, 2016 @03:22PM (#53499019) Homepage Journal
    We need to team up with Russia and attack China. It is the only way. We are now run by Russia anyway.

    • No chance. China needs the US to export its goods here. Loss of exports -> unemployment -> social unrest.

      • Re:Time for war (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Ritz_Just_Ritz ( 883997 ) on Friday December 16, 2016 @03:46PM (#53499197)

        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.

        • 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)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Well mao zedong and pol pot would prolly disagree wit ya.

          • 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)

          by Aighearach ( 97333 ) on Friday December 16, 2016 @04:23PM (#53499489)

          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)

            by currently_awake ( 1248758 )
            Trump seems to have no self control, and the President has a lot more power than he should. There is no way to win a war with China: We are not willing to invade (ground war in Asia, see Russian front during WW2 for details), and they can't win at sea or in the air.

            • Re:Time for war (Score:5, Interesting)

              by invid ( 163714 ) on Friday December 16, 2016 @05:47PM (#53500061)

              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.

          • 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)

              by Ritz_Just_Ritz ( 883997 )

              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

          • 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)

            by dbIII ( 701233 )

            We simply can't tolerate this behavior.

            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.

        • 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)

      by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Friday December 16, 2016 @05:11PM (#53499815) Journal

      We need to team up with Russia and attack China.

      It won't work. China built a Wall.

  • 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.

    • Nobody is handing anything to China. China is grabbing it.

  • Activate Self-Destruct! (Score:5, Funny)

    by maharvey ( 785540 ) on Friday December 16, 2016 @03:30PM (#53499085)

    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...

    • We should have Pali style suicide bomber drones, which will explode once the Chinese try finding out what they have.

    • 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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16, 2016 @03:30PM (#53499087)

    If you kids don't remember the Glomar Explorer,
    it's about time you googled it.
    Those Chinese ain't stupid.

  • Non story (Score:5, Informative)

    by PinkyGigglebrain ( 730753 ) on Friday December 16, 2016 @03:32PM (#53499093)

    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)

      by sabri ( 584428 )

      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)

      by Frank Burly ( 4247955 ) on Friday December 16, 2016 @03:47PM (#53499209)

      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.

      • Do we have any info on the purpose/sophistication of this UUV? They may not have intended to bring the spy plane down; but once that happened, they spent a fair while going through the hardware, though they sent the crew home pretty quickly.

        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)

        by swb ( 14022 )

        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.

    • There's nothing much in there worth getting. It's a survey drone.

  • Dear China... (Score:4, Funny)

    by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Friday December 16, 2016 @03:33PM (#53499097)
    Return our toys or Trump will whine about it on Twitter.

  • Hmmmmm (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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]).

  • Sorry officer, the car I was driving wasn't stolen - it was captured.
  • "So, are you guys going to be phoning Taiwan again, any time soon?"

  • Some helpful context: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by morethanapapercert ( 749527 ) on Friday December 16, 2016 @03:57PM (#53499281) Homepage
    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. China appears to be doing this mainly to expand its territorial waters. China's efforts have been centred largely in the Spratly and Paracel Islands regions. The Paracels are arguably within the Vietnamese territorial waters, while international treaties recognize the Spratly group as being within the Philippine exclusive economic zone.

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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)

        by morethanapapercert ( 749527 ) on Friday December 16, 2016 @05:45PM (#53500051) Homepage
        It is my understanding that there are several different distinctions, each with its own measurements, for what constitutes a nations waters.

        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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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

    • 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.

    • 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)

    by MikeMo ( 521697 ) on Friday December 16, 2016 @03:59PM (#53499287)
    It is clear that China does whatever it wants and doesn't give a damn about international law. They've had wiggle room in other cases, but this is blatant, flat-out theft in broad daylight with witnesses.

  • Is it wrong to be suspicious? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) on Friday December 16, 2016 @04:03PM (#53499319) Homepage

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Or cutting/tapping fibre-optic cables.

    • Yes, you are wrong. There is nothing sinister or illegal about gathering military intelligence in international waters.

      • 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?

        • You're wrong because your suspicions are not relevant. Why are you trying to blame the victim and lose sight of the real issue?

    • 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.

      • 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)

    by TheCarp ( 96830 ) <sjc.carpanet@net> on Friday December 16, 2016 @04:18PM (#53499445) Homepage

    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.

  • Cover up. (Score:2, Informative)

    by x0ra ( 1249540 )
    > The drone was launched by the USNS Bowditch, a civilian crewed oceanographic ship that is operated by the Military Sealift Command
    So, it was a spy UUV.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by JustNiz ( 692889 )

      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.

  • 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

  • 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?

Slashdot Top Deals

"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight

Close