https://twitter.com/epineyro_ok/status/1378112721628114947
ADS-B track: https://i.imgur.com/1wxAkK2.jpg
"Last night we flew at 5000 feet over the foreign fishing fleet that preys on our seas, causing ecological disasters. They weren't at mile 201, they were well in our territorial waters."
(courtesy /r/aviation and gTranslate)
They have spent years getting it back to spec to make the trans-pacfic flight back home
Description of property: https://www.aerotime.aero/22859-john-travoltas-house
Photo of house w/ 707 in "car-port" from above article: https://www.aerotime.aero/upload/files/john-travoltas-house-...
Local beer was a little rare in the places around our hotel (probably because we were near Broad Street), but they had "Trooper" at Malt House. It was actually really great.
That may also be influenced by the fact that I mostly only could get foreign light lagers everywhere else, and Malt House was a great place to relax on the canal a little away from the Hen Party craziness.
1968 GULFSTREAM G1159B N24YS (still owned by the Fry family)
1976 ROCKWELL NA-265-60 N607CF (now owned by an airshow)
1955 PIPER PA-23 N3494B (owned by someone else)
1971 GULFSTREAM G1159B N44YS (still owned by the Fry family)
1976 ROCKWELL NA-265-60 N39CB (now owned by an airshow)
1977 DEHAVILLAND CANADA DHC-6-300 N814BC (still owned by the Fry family)
1978 BOEING 727-281(A)(RE) N724YS (now registered to a UK blind trust)
1980 BOEING 747SP-27 N747A (now owned by NASA)
1981 ROCKWELL NA-265-65 N88BF (still owned by the Fry family)
1981 ROCKWELL NA-265-65 N654YS (still owned by the Fry family)
1992 BEECH B300 N4YS (still owned by the Fry family)
2011 GULFSTREAM G280 N38GL (now owned by a casino corporation)
That is -insane- low for a craft like that.
I bought a number of things there on a few trips I made to Cali back in... 2013! Well, that explains it.
Edit: Yes, the electronics store chain and not just the grocery store that was at Kooser and Camden many, many years.
Thing is, you have to keep the 787 flying - they're not designed to be parked for weeks or months at a time. Normally that'd be a problem for a business jet since they're little more than toys for rich people but the 787 is up to 20% more fuel efficient than comparable older models. As long as its set up for cargo, the owner can just rent it out and have someone else cover the majority of the maintenance burden. It wouldn't be profitable, but if you need (or want) a brand new commercial jet, it's an easy way to subsidize that cost.
https://www.privatefly.com/private-jets/large-airliner-hire/...
Looks pretty cool if I was wealthier and wanted a destination wedding this would be the way!
I've wondered lately if he is working so much because of his hobbies, or just loves any acting gig?
(I need a life?)
That's quite a career!
Doubtful[1][2][3][4]
[1] https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a9/78/53/a9785360d124d8aaa623...
[2] https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nRSimtZke9k/WWlqQvTqa6I/AAAAAAAAN...
[3] https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/18-b...
[4] https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-G2GwFIKQQpI/VcDUw4Y8N9I/AAAAAAAAC...
And that's just the tip of the iceberg of examples.
The Korean War technically isn’t over, and since both sides claim they won, you’ll have to pick a winner yourself.
The US military’s extreme prowess in the first Iraq war was the last evidence the Soviets needed that they had lost the Cold War.
The US was able to achieve its goals in Yugoslavia in a straightforward manner.
The cold war was an implosion by economics and the vast bulk of the preasure came from western europe who alost harvested nearly all of the victory gains, and that happened years before the first gulf war.
The US Acted as a poorly paid mercenary force for the houses of Said doing the first and second gulf war and the long term strategic goal went in Iran's favor when the US/Saudi backed puppet government of Iraq imploded and someone else had to step in and deal with ISIS(that someone else originally turned out to be Iran's republican guard backed by Russian advisors and hardware).
Kosovo again had Europe playing they leading role in the diplomacy both post and doing the war and harvesting most of the benefits.
Outside of late western Roman empire, i can think of few nations where the army was as impotent in terms of actually backing the diplomatic game or rather where the diplomats where as incompetent that despite having the best trained/funded army no tactical victory was too great to turn into an strategic defeat.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/19/manilas-images-are-reve...
And then there is the oddities like japan who theoretically do not have an navy but who's cost guard(or self defense force) operate carriers.
It may be more that police is trained to do that compared to soldiers, as in order to be effective in what they supposed to do, they all should be specialized. And yes, when it comes to fighting drug dealers and all around looks more like a war zone instead of a "misbehaving civilians" affair, then a more appropriate tool use gets warranted.
They won't go away and they WILL take every single living thing from the ocean unless someone steps in.
Quite standard practice, and very much applicable in situations where these roaming fleets are steeling quota that they have no right to.
The problem with a lot of navies is that if you refuse to decommission old rust buckets you end up with an navy that looks impressive on paper but rarely makes it out of port and i suspect this is the case for the Argentinian navy.
you don't need dozens of blue water warships to patrol against pirate fishing, you need a few patrol boats and a few long range maritime surveillance planes.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-argentina-economy-gdp-idU...
It doesn't matter when you read this.
Before you ask, no, there is no such thing as a stealth radar fishing boat.
China: "Hold my píjiŭ."
We're living out a Neal Stephenson novel.
Maybe US could help Argentina enforce its fishing rights, in return for a lease of port space. The sort of win-win arrangement that builds mutual good will.
China accounts for 11% of Argentina’s exports. I’d imagine a lot of it is soy and maybe lithium.
The World Bank says[2] that exports make up 14.25% of Argentine GDP. Assuming no substitution, if China cut off all Argentine exports, it would therefore reduce Argentine GDP by 1.56% -- a very big deal. There would of course be substitution, so that's a weak upper bound.
And maybe an extremely weak one. According to this[3] (apparently Australian news outlet which I admit I've never heard of), China's trade sanctions against Australia following the latter's suggestion that the world look more into the origins of the coronavirus only reduced Australian exports to China by 2%.
[1] https://tradingeconomics.com/argentina/exports/china
[2] https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/ARG#:~:text=Arg....
[3] https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/c....
Uyghurs is an internal affair and they brought Beijing pressure on themselves by making terrorism acts. Fishing in other nations' waters, bullying Taiwan, leaking virus are international acts that are serious enough for retaliation from the international community, if they wanted to do something about it.
like what?
List of incidents covered within this general Wikipedia article [1].
A factor I haven't seen discussed much in non-Chinese press is that the Xinjiang region was one of the last (if not the very last) to resist the CCP in the Chinese Civil War [2] [3], with some relatively non-trivial, remotely-originated clandestine support by both the (by then) Taiwan-based KMT and CIA until well after (around 1953) the generally-recognized end of the civil war (around 1949).
I'd like to hear the perspective of native-born Chinese "CCP-ologist" and "CIA-ologist" HN readers on how this historical background might color the CCP's current handling of the region. IMHO, both the CCP and CIA have long memories, but I could be off base.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_Xinjiang_into...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuomintang_Islamic_insurgency
Or if lab leak was proven, or lab leak + it was a product GOF deliberately created to infect humans it could provide enough public support to back it. I think there are enough hawks in government. Good or bad, a hot or 'warm' war is a huge and devastating step without huge public support across many nation coalitions. Don't want iraq 2.0 with weapons of mass infection that turn out to not be true.
Personally I think Trump emboldened this behavior with his child-like understanding of the politics and singular focus on 'they will pay for the wall' attitude towards NATO.
Also remember we Argentinians suffered a bloody dictatorship in the 70s, complete with illegal detentions, torture and executions, and while of course the military renews itself with new people, some sectors of it still haven't come to terms with their past (some remain who actually sympathize with the dictatorship or were involved in it).
So no, what you're describing is not the full picture.
I even saw a higher up personally helping once, I was in an open source tech conference, and a colonel was present to show the air force work using Ubuntu and Debian, while chatting with him he got a phone call about a radar issue, he immediately picked up a laptop and started to fire up some domestic made tech and started helping the operators directly.
If the timing wasn't seemly so random I would think they did it on purpose just to show off the cool tech.
In battle, overriding a safety feature might be the difference between returning fire and saving the ship and crew, or losing all hands.
The mentality is changing a lot and I'm starting to see safety requirements in contracts and more and more frequent audits from customers on the topic (even though it wasn't in the spirit of things or the contract when system was designed, ugh...) and it's very, very hard to retrofit safety and personel safety in a product line, codebase, system design, and especially in the daily reflexes of systems or sw engineers. Everyone seems to overshoot ("safety says we must do X" - well no it's still an engineering compromise you still have choices and trade-offs - "but safety!" - yes, let's go back to the safety plan, what are the critical elements, what are the failure modes, what are the chances, what is the expected system response?...)
It's particularly tough for those teams that have to swallow the double firehose of safety and "cyber"-security :-D
"Oh the ship disappeared? What are you going to do?"
I can't help but be cynical in this situation. If their Coast Guard is as efficient as their ATC that's what you can expect.
You'd have better luck getting the British to send their OPV based in the Falklands over than get any meaningful response from what little of the Argentine armed forces or other authorities have.
There is simply that much of them. Chinese fishing fleet is world's biggest, and they have 1 gigaton a year steel output to make more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3lkM4t8AaA
Argentina sinks Chinese fishing ship that entered restricted area(2016)
>"The offending ship continued to maneuver in an attempt to cause a collision" (0:20)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00rMVee0R4c
>Therefore, the concept of people's war was applied to the sea with fishermen and other nautical laborers being drafted into a maritime militia.
>Most vessels are issued with navigation and communication equipment while some are also issued small arms. The communications systems can be used both for communication and espionage. Often fishermen supply their own vessels, however, there are also core contingents of the maritime militia who operate vessels fitted out for militia work instead of fishing; these vessels feature reinforced bows for ramming and high powered water cannons. The increasing sophistication of militia vessels' communication equipment is a double-edged sword for Chinese authorities. New equipment, as well as training in its use, has substantially improved command, control, and coordination of militia units. However, the vessels' resulting professionalism and sophisticated maneuvers make them more identifiable as government-sponsored actors, dampening their ability to function as a gray-zone force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Armed_Forces_Mariti...
S. Korean Coast Guard fires machine gun in warning to illegal Chinese fishing boats
>"They were surrounded and threatened by some 30 other fishing boats" (0:17)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42AWXEzcoFk
You don't need to look very far to find reports like this. There are too many incidents to list here.
Mandatory disclaimer for the pro-China accounts: I'm very much not interested in deflecting to the West's problems--they exist, but they don't excuse China (nor does China's bad behavior excuse that of the West's). This kind of deflection is just a race to the bottom.
Bullshit, somebody on board is turning off the ship's transponder. They know that they are doing something criminal.
Further, and I say this as someone who prefers to err on the tough-on-crime side, it's unjust to punish the desperate when the wealthy are pulling the strings, raking in the profit, and bearing none of the risk.
So people do care about human rights.
But of course with hypocrisy - so we are quite nice - but we paid Gaddafi and now ergogan and morocco to do the dirty work to keep them away, so we can have more or less clean hands.
FWIW, this was nothing but a media circus. Trump largely continued immigration practices that existed under Obama and indeed Trump deported fewer undocumented immigrants than Obama did in his first term, but under Obama everything was great and then under Trump they were “concentration camps” and kids were in cages and being separated from their family and America is a white supremacist hellscape and etc.
This doesn’t mean that the Us didn’t deserve its immigration-policy reckoning; only that Trump didn’t do anything to cause it except offend the media.
(for the rabid partisans out there, this one particular defense of Trump doesn’t imply that I’m a Trump supporter or that he doesn’t deserve criticism for other things, etc)
It would be better to fight the defacto slavery of the crews (agencies, owners and so on), the abysmal conditions in these crews home countries and sanction the hell out the owners of these ships and the people / companies making a healthy profit from them. But why bother, because you would just end up with more expensive shipping im general and more expensive fish.
Fisherboats do not want to fight gun ships - and just retreat if they see, the threat is serious.
Hell, we're witnessing in-your-face genocide of the Uighurs, takeover of Hong Kong, imminent takeover of Taiwan, support of North Korea's psychopathic regime, destruction of the environment in every way possible (as in this story), etc... and the rest of the world sits on its collective hands. China knows how to boil frogs nice and slowly.
The problem with these rules, IMHO, is that they were created to serve the interests of western powers. Hard to force other countries to play by them, then.
The "our bastard" doctrine was an idiocy on massive scale, and continues to be one.
The West has bred all the snakes in the snake pit they ended up in now itself.
> "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard."
There is no yours, or their bastards, there are just bastards.
The only way it turns to shoot-and-sink is if the boats flagrantly disregard orders through multiple points of escalation. Even then the attempt would be to disable the ship, not destroy it (by shooting out the engine or rudder, for example).
This feels like a way to get into a game of "you can't be everywhere at once".
If they flee, sink the ship.
They’ll catch on.
So how about:
Sell the ship, let the crew live in a nice hotel, book them a 1st class flight back home, then bill the country under who's flag the ship was operating. If they can't / refuse to pay, import sanctions.
That way, you're not punishing the crew, yet making such behavior financially uninteresting. That's the only way because the person who decided to send that ship there is probably far away and busy counting profits.
Also, it's a lot easier to capture the boat if that's a positive experience for the crew. They might flee from a trip to prison but few people run from a paid vacation offer.
They may still run if accepting the paid vacation offer would be followed by imprisonment at home.
So offer them permanent residency instead. And then prepare for the logistics issue of managing a great fleet of boats racing straight to your ports.
"Dealing" with China is going to get a lot hotter. Period.
Want to get rid of the fishing fleet? Make a credible offer of residency and amnesty to all their crews - no strings attached, no continued use as pawns in politics. Simple trade: they bring in and surrender their vessel, you give each a green card, a key to a room, some starting cash, and a "thank you for your service", and forget about them.
But OK, so let's scratch the "and forget about them" part. Have the counterintelligence agency keep their details in their database, and warn them that they won't get security clearance in the next decade or three. This won't discourage anyone who's eager to escape their home country.
Or start using a bunch of them to sink for reef seeding.
The point is to make the expected ROI of trespassing in other nations' territorial waters negative. The crew is cheap and easy to replace relative to the boat. So you have to make the boat go away (sink it or impound it) to make the corporate owner back on land feel the heat.
Imprison them and give them back to their home country ASAP is probably the right way to handle the crew.
It would also have the nice side effect of dissuading countries to lend their flag to shady companies all over the world.
Realistically, once this becomes a strategem, and a known one, anyone with a boat can enter your waters, hoist the jolly roger, then say "Yeah, take me into asylum." And poof, your immigration procedures evaporate.
Aren't the vast majority of these actually "flags of convenience" and registered in Panama?
Thats why navies exist.
You send a handful of frigates and bombers there and start sinking ships.
Like any navy is supposed to.
Nations like ours with low birth rates and aging workforces depend on immigrants to maintain vibrant economies. The alternative is to become like Japan, where the economy stagnates and abandoned houses litter the countryside.
Thus uncontrolled migration can never be a solution to our population issues. Instead effort should be put into attracting more skilled workforce that is in demand, and they should come in legally.
Long story short, many people still want to have children, and not having fertility should be the problem that is getting addressed.
Male-female resentment is not the reason fertility rates around the globe have fallen precipitously over the past century. That's a bizarre idea.
When women have access to contraception and opportunities to participate in the workforce and pursue higher education, it turns out they are less interested in raising large families.
There are tools we could be using to encourage people to have more children, such as universal childcare and pre-K, generous financial support for low-income families, and high quality public schools. Unfortunately, opponents to immigration typically also oppose these policies, too.
There are competent engineers "waiting in line" for years, while illegals are allowed to stay... it's basically rewarding the criminals and punishing the honest ones.
Immigration is generally not territorial dispute, indeed, its far more often voting for an alternate regime with one’s feet than asserting a hostile territorial claim.
A few trawlers got boarded but no shots were fired.
One narrative concerning piracy off the coast of Somalia is that incursion of foreign fishing fleets took away the opportunity for lawful livelihoods for those living in Somalia. Which in the context of this post is ... troublingly ironic.
When the locals, for lack of a standing Navy, defend their waters, we call them pirates and send our Navy to fight them. No surprise, that these pirates went after bigger ships, realizing that being more profitable than fishing. Now imagine a world, in which our Navies would defend Somali waters against these intrusions. While at the same time, we did some real, like non-military, backes nation building through the UN. I guess that would have been a much better way to combat piracy there. But who gives a shit about some poor bastards in a failed state somewhere in Africa?
Really the only nation that can stop this is China.
I assume self-preservation instinct kicks in after the first instance of someone calling your bluff, but it can't really be helped.
Trained giant squid and dolphins would be the next impractical idea.
Final option: pull a Captain Nemo.
Putting the inner 10 year old away now.
Also
> But Ireland and the UK didnt
Yes one can only wonder why the UK would side with Canada over the EU.
> foreshadowing the biggest gripe of Brexit?
Only the biggest nonense of the brexit nonsenses.
Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars. In fact, the UK's hypocritical support of Canada in the conflict led Iceland to declare for Spain / the EU.
[5] Rose, Alex (2008). Who Killed the Grand Banks?. Toronto: Wiley. pp. 53–71. ISBN 978-0-470-15387-1.
http://www.aquatic.uoguelph.ca/human/policy/lawofthesea/cane...
Disclaimer: I used to work for Ascentio.
I have some buddies that are working on improving this!