Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (10627)	4/6/2001 12:37:20 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

I do know something about aerodynamics. Fighters are notoriously unstable when flying at the speed that a P-3 cruises at. Fighters are under control when flying past at high speed, not when pacing a larger, slow moving aircraft. Agreed so they should not come really close at slow speed. The P3 pilot didn't force the F-8 pilot to make such a dangerous manuever. A Chinese craft operating over international waters near our coast would be badged but I don't think it we would order fighters to go within 20 feet of it. And if we did and a collision resulted we wouldn't hold the crew hostage until China issued a formal apology. Your comment about the aircraft used by defectors might have some relevance to the question of having the plane returned but it has no relevance to having the crew returned. Tim

To: cosmicforce who wrote (10627)	4/6/2001 1:18:38 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Just to be even handed here, have we ever returned any stolen aircraft given to us by defectors? No. That's not quite true. In a 1976 incident, a Soviet defector flew an advanced MiG-25 fighter jet to Japan, which the United States thoroughly inspected for intelligence purposes, over Soviet protests. The jet was returned two months later -- in crates. ( from "Past Actions Undercut U.S. Case, Lawyers Say ",http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46936-2001Apr5.html , an interesting background article). The ramming stories are pretty silly. A more conventional and believable analysis was in the WP yesterday: Fighter Jet Flew Below U.S. Plane Before Impact washingtonpost.com The midair collision that touched off a crisis between China and the United States occurred after a Chinese F-8 interceptor started to fly directly below a U.S. surveillance plane and the U.S. aircraft executed a banking maneuver to the left, Western sources said today. The new details of Sunday's accident, provided by sources briefed by U.S. officials, did not make clear who was to blame. But they seemed to explain the rationale behind Chinese assertions that the U.S. plane moved "suddenly" and thereby triggered the accident, causing the Chinese fighter to crash with the apparent loss of its pilot. On the subject of reciprocity, there was this rather bland statement in another article a couple days back: This game was a familiar one to American and Soviet cold war intelligence planners. And the American military, which does not tolerate such close surveillance of United States territory, regards these operations as entirely routine. nytimes.com I assume this will all be settled quietly after things calm down a little. W may or may not really want to pick a fight with China on this, but I'd expect the business interests that want to keep relations smooth will hold sway in the end.