Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
The China Fiasco
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [QB] JK: [i]As for your Russian analogy, we caught 'em spying, we got pissed, we kicked out a bunch of their diplomats. This is hardly the same situation, yet we've responded with a hard-line (the same sort of hard-line that the Chinese are).[/i] You didn't even read it, did you? My point, for those of you who pay attention, was that we were in a similar position with the Russians as the Chinese were with us. The Russians did something we didn't like, but legally, we couldn't detain them. Same deal with the Chinese. What would you think if we HAD, in contravention of all international law, arrested the Russian diplomat spies? Because it's the EXACT SAME SITUATION. It is/would be an action taken in total contravention of treaty for the simple reason that one party did something perfectly legal that the other didn't like. We were legally required to return the Russians to their homeland, as the Chinese are required to return our people here. [i]For one thing, insurance would cover it.[/i] This is relevant how? WHY you take the analogous actions doesn't matter. The analogous actions HAVE been taken. How do you view them? [i]For another, we're talking airplanes here.[/i] That's why it's called an analogy. How does the vehicle affect the accuracy of the analogy? [i]I don't know why you and JeffR keep comparing this to 18-wheelers and Ferraris.[/i] Then you must not be paying attention. Jeff explained this at least once. So since you have no REAL objections to my analogy, shall we just say I'm right and call it a night, then? [i]They willingly walked into that "prison" by landing on Hainon Island.[/i] No, they didn't, because as far as they knew, there would BE no prison. There COULDN'T be, under international law. Effectively, the Chinese promised that they would not do exactly what they have done. They broke their word. [i]Computer malfunctions never happen?[/i] Remember, this is a thirty year old plane. Who says the autopilot is computer controlled? You may just push a button that says, "Fly in a straight line," for all you know. And besides that, we're not talking a Windows operating system, here. These things are designed to be totally failsafe. There is NO WAY that the autopilot could fail and ditch the plane, or they wouldn't be allowed to use them. Yet further, IF the plane swerved while no one was at the controls, how did they avoid dropping into the ocean? Ain't no way they moved around the plane to get to the controls while it was banking like that. [i]Those Marine Ospreys haven't been crashing quite a bit, have they?[/i] On landings and takeoffs, which are definitely not auto-pilot controlled maneuvers. We're talking about flying in a straight line, here. All you really need is a physical clamp to keep the yoke from moving. Heck, a well-placed rope or two in the cockpit could do it, in a pinch. There is NO WAY that our plane could have caused the collision. You have no argument here. Give it up. [i]with two aggressive Chinese jets buzzing by so close, why leave the flying to the auto-pilot when it can't predict the manuevers of the Chinese jets?[/i] Perhaps they assumed that the Chinese pilots had half a brain in their collective head. You are quite correct in that this is now known to be a false assumption, but at the time, it was a good one based on the available information. It's also worth pointing out yet again that the US plane was under no obligation to try to avoid the Chinese jets. The jets, being more maneuverable, were required to avoid the larger plane, eg. ours. [i]That's like setting your car (oh, look, I'm doing it now...) to cruise control and taking a nap as you drive down I-95.[/i] Completely unanalogous situation. A plane has three degrees of maneuverability, whereas a car has two. A plane is far, far more maneuverable in those degrees than a car. There are several orders of magnitude fewer planes in the sky than cars on the road per vehicle volume. International rules of aviation require that the faster plane stay out of the way of the slower. UM: [i]By the way, Chinamen are deserved of painful death by Molten Plastic. Ride of the Valkyries.[/i] For great justice? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3