July 6, 2001

5:15 PM

China has sent a billto the US for $1 million to pay for the time that our spy plane spent sitting on the tarmac in China, waiting for the Chinese to grant permission to get it out of there.
posted by Steven Den Beste (29 comments total)

That may sound ridiculous, and it probably is, but let's not forget that this bill came after the Pentagon spokesman said they were prepared to reimburse China for "reasonable costs". Whether $1 million is too much or not, and what exactly constituted as the "costs" that the Pentagon spokesman referred to, I can't really comment.
posted by aki at 5:55 PM on July 6, 2001

That's ridiculous, but it's no different than a police department impounding your car and then making you pay for storage time to get it back.
posted by brantstrand at 5:55 PM on July 6, 2001

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
posted by rebeccablood at 5:57 PM on July 6, 2001

arg, it's just too hard to pick a bias. do i dislike dogma-driven china or money-driven america more? i need to to pick a side to make the appropriate cynical/sarcastic remarks!

perhaps i could just make fun of both of them.
posted by will at 6:32 PM on July 6, 2001

Can the US bill China for all the secrets they learned from tearing the plane apart? Call it "consulting fees".

What? I'm serious.
posted by jpoulos at 7:46 PM on July 6, 2001

woodward tells a story about John Belushi getting testy with Nicolson about cab fare or sometime when he was in mexico. 50$ i think. Jack sent Belushi the cash. In pennies.
posted by clavdivs at 7:55 PM on July 6, 2001

Can the US bill China for all the secrets they learned from tearing the plane apart? Call it "consulting fees".


heh, we hook them with free secrets for the past eight years, and now that they're hooked, we start charging.

But more seriously, we should charge for the "rental" of the plane, and the damage done to the plane.
posted by gyc at 8:09 PM on July 6, 2001

So let me get this straight....

We're flying a spy plane over china....

Two of their pilots shadow the plane....

One of their pilots gets cocky, screws up, and hits our plane...

Our pilots make an emergency landing because the plane has been damaged...by them....

They demand an apology...

They keep the plane, and study it for tech....

And then they bill us for hangar time?

I think someone might need to clue the chinese government in on the principles of capitalism, which go something like this:

I get something, I pay you.

You get something, you pay me.

It's not: I get something, you pay me.

silly people.
posted by jaded at 9:44 PM on July 6, 2001

Well thats obviously both sides of the story. Duh-uh! Gee, they must be complete doofuses!
posted by aki at 11:15 PM on July 6, 2001

Wow. This is twice today I've seen such insultingly sarcastic posts on mefi that I honestly have to wonder if it's worth my time to reply, since all that reading them has done is further lower my faith in humanity. Alas, I'm bored, so I'll take a shot.

aki: Since you apparently, with your infinite wisdom and superior intellect which you display so well in your post, are blessed with the full insight on both sides of this situation, I implore you, oh great one, share with us your wondrous knowledge that we, too, may be as enlightenend as you!

Or, to cut away all the bull****: How about, instead of sitting there and making a sort of sideways insult about everyone not knowing what they're talking about, why don't you actually stop for a minute and contribute something useful to the discussion by explaining just what everyone seems to be missing here, instead of using up a few bytes of disk space on Mefi's server that would have served a more meaningful life had they been marked as "damaged" and never used.

And yes, I'm in a bad mood, and the change in the signal/noise ratio I've been seeing here recently isn't helping.
posted by CrayDrygu at 12:09 AM on July 7, 2001

It's not: I get something, you pay me.

Pronoun trouble. It's not, he doesn't have to shoot YOU now, it's, he doesn't have to shoot ME now.
posted by kindall at 12:23 AM on July 7, 2001

If you read this sentence, "The costs were related mostly to support provided by the Chinese government and local businesses while a Lockheed Martin recovery crew was on Hainan." then does it not start to make more sense?

...and so what if some business person on Hainan inflated the costs. Give a little to the local economy, perhaps then some shop owners can send their children to the U.S to get their Masters or PHD.
posted by cmacleod at 1:13 AM on July 7, 2001

It's the principle of the thing. At least according to U.S. reports, the Chinese fighter initiated the contact by flying too close and caused the damage to the spy plane. Furthermore, there were reports that other Chinese jets forced the plane to land. Therefore the U.S. shouldn't have to pay anything when it was the Chinese that forced the plane down.
posted by gyc at 1:48 AM on July 7, 2001

this stunt has easily been worth a million bux. you just gotta know that downed 'spy plane' was outfitted not with the latest hi-tek deathtronics, but with old VHF mobile phone transmitters and decommissioned ICBM guidance boards. it was that jack ryan d00dz idea.
posted by quonsar at 2:18 AM on July 7, 2001

Bloody Americans. You fly a Spy plane over China (granted, in International airspace - but who were you spying on?) - China get pissed off, the plane comes down - whose fault it was doesn't matter - the plane is then gutted from top to bottom. China demand an apology and $1 million dollars. Seems fair to me.

I wonder what would've happened had China sent a spy plane over America.....
posted by metaxa at 3:09 AM on July 7, 2001

The Gubment should agree to pay it only if China bakes us a gigantic fortune cookie.

What?!? That's like cultural exchange, or something......

Any suggestions on what the fortune might read?
posted by Optamystic at 4:12 AM on July 7, 2001

Right, perhaps it was bad timing for me to throw an insultingly sarcastic remark, even in response to the previous comments which I've found equally insulting in its bias and lack of objectivity. I will try to prevent spending the rest of this post defending myself though. *strain*

I thought my first post made a valid point, namely that the Pentagon spokesman offered to reimburse China, and it was following that which China billed them. The general responses so far have mostly been along the lines of "how dare they bill us!?". What? You asked for it.

The real question is whether the sum is seriously unreasonable, and the principle of offering to pay, and refusing to follow through. Is $1 million really worth dishonouring the initial promise? "Nooo it was only $999,999!". Now that is going to seriously offend the chinese government. Not to mention the whole point of the original offer was to ease the tension between the two countries.

CrayDrygu, I hope that meets your standard for taking up diskspace usage. Perhaps next time, I should just go with "HAHAHA!!!"
posted by aki at 4:57 AM on July 7, 2001

Bloody Americans. You fly a Spy plane over China (granted, in International airspace - but who were you spying on?) - China get pissed off, the plane comes down - whose fault it was doesn't matter - the plane is then gutted from top to bottom. China demand an apology and $1 million dollars. Seems fair to me.

Uh, okay. I assuming this isn't sarcasm and you're just deranged. International airspace is just that - nobody "owns" it. To confront aircraft with military fighters and harrass them, unless the aircraft is entering your airspace, is aggression pure and simple. So I guess that means we charge China one million dollars for every spy of theirs we eject from our country for "processing costs."

I remember some years back when some washed up second-rate power was outraged at one of their ships being hit with a missile while they attempted to retain a chunk of land for strategic sheep purposes. They didn't seem to like the fact that the country that they stole the island from took it back...bloody imperialists.
posted by RevGreg at 5:16 AM on July 7, 2001

if China bakes us a gigantic fortune cookie.

Not to shock, but the fortune cookie was invented in the U.S.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:35 AM on July 7, 2001

Not to shock, but the fortune cookie was invented in the U.S.

I'm shocked stunned...
posted by RevGreg at 6:44 AM on July 7, 2001

International airspace is just that - nobody "owns" it. To confront aircraft with military fighters and harrass them, unless the aircraft is entering your airspace, is aggression pure and simple.

Wait a second though, if international airspace is just that, they're free to send fighters to shadow the spy planes as much as you are to send the spy plane in the first place. Similarly put, spying on them could definitely count as harassment or even possibly aggression, "pure and simple".

I swear I remember previous threads on this with less bias and more objectivity, but this thread thus far has only been quite disturbing and somewhat insulting.
posted by aki at 7:08 AM on July 7, 2001

Wait a second though, if international airspace is just that, they're free to send fighters to shadow the spy planes as much as you are to send the spy plane in the first place.

Since when does "shadowing" involve repeated unsafe manuvers in close quarters? It not like an official request for Chinese pilots to maintain safe margins between the planes hadn't been sent months earlier.

Similarly put, spying on them could definitely count as harassment or even possibly aggression, "pure and simple".

Not according to international law Ari. Oh, I forgot. China doesn't feel compelled to agree to most any international accords.

this thread thus far has only been quite disturbing and somewhat insulting.

Ari quoted from earlier in the thread, Well thats obviously both sides of the story. Duh-uh! Gee, they must be complete doofuses! (entire post)

Your contribution to the insulting nature has been noted. Lighten up a bit!
posted by RevGreg at 7:30 AM on July 7, 2001

We can deduct the fee from the damage they did to he plane while it was on the ground. I still find it incredible that some people think a slow propeller plane could run into a jet fighter. I guess their top gun school must conduct swimming lessons for pilots.
posted by NJguy at 7:47 AM on July 7, 2001

id like to hear from mr.mcleod about the tension level over there. This thread is cowboy like, geez, pay the million in pennies and send it in a cargo plane (or the spy plane) then fly it to a remote area of china(at least request)
posted by clavdivs at 7:57 AM on July 7, 2001

Since when does "shadowing" involve repeated unsafe manuvers in close quarters?

That's more of a your word against their's deal. The whole issue has been. But, if they were safely following the spy plane as they claim, then its not a breach of international laws, and the judgement of aggression would be reversed.

Yeah properller-plane/jet-fighter, but clearly thats what they're standing by (which is what matters in disputes like these), and its undoubtedbly possible.

Lighten up a bit!

Come to think of it, I realise I must have missed the comedic spin of this long overdrawn issue. Looking back on all the gags, and thinking about how long this conflict has been going on for, I'm guessing its probably been a little Letterman-exercised thing, and most people take it pretty light heartedly. It's just that, it's been more or less a non-issue here in Australia, so I've completely missed the humour bus-o-love.

Not to invalidate my previous posts, I stand by them, but the rest of the comments seem far less disturbing now. :)
posted by aki at 8:22 AM on July 7, 2001

i just think this is funny. but thats my twisted sense of humour.

oh please china - mess with the australian govt too - they'd be crying on national tv if you did - it would be so fun!
posted by endorwitch at 10:11 AM on July 7, 2001

Not to shock, but the fortune cookie was invented in the U.S.

You mean they reverse-engineered THAT, too?!?
posted by Optamystic at 3:36 PM on July 7, 2001

I thought aki's "insulting" comment was funny and right on target. When someone takes a complex issue, oversimplifies it until it slants their way, and then tries to sell it as "the facts" ("So let me get this straight....") rather than the tendentious nonsense it is, what else can you do but smirk?
posted by rodii at 5:35 PM on July 7, 2001

redux
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:32 PM on July 7, 2001