Every country controls the airspace above it as well as the air space above adjacent international waters extending for 12 nautical miles out from the country's shore line. This is defined through UN treaties. In contrast, a country's Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) is a legally arbitrary extension beyond 12 nautical miles in which the country in question is actively tracking all air traffic. The idea of an ADIZ is not a real legal thing, and there are no international treaties defining it. In other words, if I was a country my legal air space would extend 12 nautical miles from my shore out into international waters. But my radars might be scanning out to 50 miles and I might be tracking all objects in that area around me and expecting those objects to identify themselves. I might call this 50 mile band my ADIZ. But no special rights are given to me over this additional 38 mile zone just because I say it's my ADIZ. So if a news outlet is saying that China is making incursions into Taiwanese airspace they are not being accurate. But also, if they say, correctly, that China is flying military craft into Taiwans ADIZ, but then fail to clarify that this isn't a violation of any international laws, treaties, or agreements, and is a different thing than violating a country's airspace, then it's hard to see how they are not purposefully misleading the reader. Or even if the headline says that China is violating Taiwanese airspace, and then the article explains the difference between airspace and ADIZ in the 12th paragraph, it still seems crafted to mislead. 

I don't think we will go to war with China because our military must understand that we would be crushed if we do even if the politicians in Washington seem to not understand this fact. But I think a quick look at the mainstream news, and all these misleading stories, shows we are being prepped to support such a war. 

- jim 10-05-2021 10:34 am

was not aware this was an issue. did i fail twitter or did twitter fail me?


- dave 10-05-2021 11:35 am

Not sure exactly what you are asking. The Guardian article you linked (written by Lt Col Daniel L Davis (ret)) is a good example showing that the U.S. military understands they would be defeated in a war with China (in the Indo-Pacific) while lots of politicians in Washington do not. The point he is trying to make is that they (U.S. politicians) better figure this out. But even this article (which you'd think would not be hyping the Chinese threat if he is trying to avoid war!) starts with "[T[he People’s Republic of China has launched a total of 155 warplanes – the most ever over four consecutive days – into Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone" without clarifying (even later in the article) that this isn't illegal and in no way violates Taiwanese air space. Outside of the number of planes involved this is very routine stuff. The U.S. routinely flies into enemy ADIZs. How is the average person suppose to understand this? My contention is that this confusion (between air space and ADIZ) is to some degree on purpose and aimed at manufacturing consent for hostilities with China (and again: even here where the author is clearly arguing against such hostilities!)

- jim 10-05-2021 11:56 am

i just linked to the article since it represented what i imagine would be a sensible approach given the options. my rhetorical question was just noting that despite all the garbage i scan on twitter this hadnt crossed my radar which has as much to do with my interests (and the interests of the news-oriented people i follow) as it does to the way twitter is organized or not organized as the case may be. it was number 4 on the trending "news" feed but ive banished the sidebar shit via ad blockers for a cleaner home page so i look at the trending stuff less. probably should look at standard news feeds more but i even had to search "taiwan" on google news before i found it as it wasnt even on the main world news page. 

and yes, i see your point regarding manufacturing consent. im curious where you were alerted to the distinction between the two zones. and whether or not it is technically illegal doesnt preclude it from being provocative if its a dramatic increase. china seems to say they are responding to provocations. everyone is sussing out boundaries. i dont understand the one china policy. seems like an untenable balancing act. 

either way i should probably get back to being self absorbed before i forget myself.

- dave 10-05-2021 12:21 pm

Yes the Chinese actions are provocative, I agree (whether illegal or not.) Same way the U.S. is provocative when we sail our navy through the Taiwan Strait for no other reason than upholding "freedom of navigation" (in other words, just because we can and we want to keep being able to.) And I agree the article is sensible in the approach it suggests. I just want to point out (I don't know why) that when the U.S. protests these Chinese provocations it's not because we think our protest will have any bearing on future Chinese action; our protests are for domestic consumption in order to mold the populaces feelings towards China. I don't think you and I have any disagreement. I always appreciate any back and forth.

- jim 10-05-2021 1:06 pm

heres a dude after your own heart.

- dave 10-05-2021 1:53 pm

I thought there was a history dredging and making islands to extend their boarders.



- bill 10-05-2021 3:15 pm

I hadn't come across him before but will check him out. I agree with this one post. Thanks.

- jim 10-05-2021 3:49 pm

Bill, yes they are doing that (as you know since you posted the link :-). In the Strait and also more broadly in the South China Sea (Spratly Islands for instance.) Provocative I guess. But whatcha' gonna do? We don't have any real military options outside of just making it more costly for China to do what they want in the Indo-Pacific.

- jim 10-06-2021 10:05 am

- dave 10-25-2021 1:27 pm

jesus I had to scroll back so far to find a post by jim
i thought i might run into the old me almost

anyway, you sure were right about the internet all along; about how goddamn evil it all really is

however you want to characterize it: neocolonial, military, capitalist, satanic; i guess the frontier myth
of it all dooped me too for awhile

afterall i do live in a town named after two bit indian killer; now officially overrun by the add-two-zeroes

luckily my kid still talks to me wrong as i am/was

so apropos of yer china-wins post: you sure were right but hey a poet with a lot of brains is like a dog
with a million dollars

i miss it/you less and less but when i do it's true

- frank (guest) 6-21-2022 3:04 pm

o jeez - almost forgot the punchlines: you were with me when I bought the pamphlet MANUFACTURING CONSENT after we ate at that goofy old vegan place with a jazz reference in its name

1. the digital revolution has bound us more closely to the past, not liberated us from it

2.the empire, not the nation-state, is capitalism's typical territorial form

The empire never ended.

There can only be one emperor:

Will it be Joe or Chou?


The Minh in "Ho Chi Minh" means Ming, or "shine."

- anonymous (guest) 6-22-2022 12:35 am

add a comment to this page:

Your post will be captioned "posted by anonymous,"
or you may enter a guest username below:

Line breaks work. HTML tags will be stripped.