Onlookers Should Not Rejoice over Collision of US Ship

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 19 June 2017
by Jiang Jun (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Kartoa Chow. Edited by Helaine Schweitzer.
According to the news report, during the early morning of June 17, U.S. Navy destroyer, the USS Fitzgerald, collided with a container ship flagged in the Philippines inside Japan’s exclusive economic zone, resulting in severe damage to the warship and the casualties of many officers. This information became the “appetizer” for the weekend’s news menu, with much discussion among regular Chinese internet users, where the majority viewed this excitedly and without fear. A “well-known military expert” even applauded the event and mentioned that he had said a decade or so ago that his ship would be forced to collide directly and forcefully head-on against a ship that was so well built, and the stronger of the two would win.

Time is needed for a detailed investigation into why the U.S. ship was hit. Even if there is an internal finding, the outside world might not necessarily learn the real answer. Regardless of why the incident occurred, the USS Fitzgerald was an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer belonging to the U.S. 7th Fleet known for its combat power and had shown off its immense capacity many times in China’s coastal waters. It is natural that this sort of behavior of ruling by force would cause resentment among the Chinese people. It is understandable that many people feel that such bad luck is “deserved” and is “karma.” However, if a somewhat influential military expert is only applauding and rejoicing over the collision, or even hoping for a copy-and-paste of this kind of encounter in the future, the professionalism of this “expert” is questionable.

First, although the root cause has not yet been disclosed, the incident was most likely an accident. After all, the countries are currently at peace rather than in a state of war, and the waters in which the incident took place were not disputed waters, while the “perpetrator” was an ally’s commercial ship and not an enemy warship. Even if you overlook the aforementioned facts, merely comparing the combat value of the destroyer and the commercial ship would simply be farfetched. One accident cannot alter the fact that the U.S. possesses the most powerful navy in the world.

Second, the root cause should be analyzed carefully, regardless of whether our opponents are the disputing parties or bystanders, in order to learn from them, so that the probability that such an event reoccurs will be lower rather than higher compared to the past. Using a commercial ship as a magic weapon to defend territorial waters and to safeguard maritime rights seems a bit preposterous.

Again, our military and navy need to tackle and study this case in order to prevent any reoccurrence involving U.S. warships. After all, our official boats have previously had accidents in our waters. In particular, however, although this event was a noncombat activity, it could have been an asymmetrical warfare tactic. It cannot be ruled out that, against a significantly stronger opponent, a hit-and-run strategy was used to pick a quarrel in this case. This is something we cannot ignore.

Lastly, a war is not only a competition of bravery and determination but also a contest involving the integrated use of hard power and soft power. It is soul-stirring, whether one experienced the pride of sinking Yoshino 100 years ago or the feat of the Hainan Island Incident more than 10 years ago. Heroes dedicating to protect their country against enemies is worthy of praise, while warriors sacrificing their lives makes us sigh with regret. We have never feared sacrifice, but more so we hope for the soldiers to return triumphant.

We completely believe that the individual experts’ wayward narrative will not fool the People’s Liberation Army, but we also hope that the experts will not deceive the rest of the nation, because by exhibiting a lack of professional scientific attitude, they will only end up fooling themselves. We especially hope that the experts will not fool the public. After all, a rational and objective voice should prevail in public opinion.


  据媒体报道,6月17日凌晨,美海军“菲茨杰拉德”号驱逐舰在日本专属经济区海域与菲律宾籍货船相撞,造成军舰严重受损,多名官兵伤亡。这一消息成为周末新闻菜单中的一道“开胃小菜”,中国网民们议论纷纷,但大都抱着看热闹不怕事大的心态。某位“著名军事专家”更是拍手称快道:十几年前我就说过,把舰艇造得结实点,我舰奉命撞击你舰,直接就撞,使劲往外顶。两军相遇勇者胜,云云。

  这次美舰被撞的原因,估计当事方还需要一段时间详尽调查,即使今后有了内部结论,外界也未必会得到真实的答案。但不论其出事原因如何,“菲茨杰拉德”号是隶属美第七舰队的“阿利·伯克”级驱逐舰,号称战力强大,曾多次到中国近海耀武扬威。这种“以霸道为王道”的做法,引起中国人的反感是很自然的事。这次倒了霉,有普通民众觉得“活该”,“恶有恶报”,这也在情理之中。但是作为有着一定影响力的军事专家如果只是击掌叫好,甚至期待未来此事可以复制粘贴,却只能算是个不够专业的“专家”。

  首先,虽然事发原因尚未公布,但最有可能是一次意外事件。毕竟当前是和平时期,而非战争状态,事发水域不是交战海域,“肇事者”是盟国的商船而非敌国的军舰。如果不顾这些前提,仅仅凭借结果来比较驱逐舰与商船的战斗值,显然过于离谱。一次意外事件远不能改变美国拥有世界最强大海军的事实。

  其次,我们的对手不论是当事方还是旁观者都会认真分析原因,从中汲取教训,今后再发生此类事故的概率应该会比过去有所降低而不是升高。幻想将商船作为保卫领海、维护海权的克敌法宝,更有点儿天方夜谭的味道。

  再次,我们军队和海事部门需要有针对性地研究这一事例,以防重蹈美军舰覆辙,毕竟我们的公务船也曾在内水发生过意外。特别是这一事件虽非作战行动,但可能是非对称作战的一种样式,不排除个别实力远不如我们的对手,抱着“捞一把就走”的态度寻衅滋事,我们确实不能不防。

  最后,战争不仅仅是胆量和意志的比拼,更是硬实力和软实力综合运用的较量。无论是百多年前“撞沉吉野”的豪情,还是十多年前“四一”撞机的壮举,都令人荡气回肠。英雄们保卫祖国不畏强敌的献身精神值得称颂,而勇士们生命的付出更着实令我们扼腕叹息。我们从来不畏惧牺牲,但是更希望看到战士们凯旋。

  我们完全相信个别专家的任性言论忽悠不了解放军官兵,但是我们同样希望专家们不要忽悠各国同行,缺乏科学专业的态度最终只能是忽悠自己;我们更希望专家们不要忽悠公众,毕竟理性客观的声音更应在社会舆论中占据上风。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Russia: Political Analyst Reveals the Real Reason behind US Tariffs*

Austria: Donald Trump Revives the Liberals in Canada

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Topics

Austria: Donald Trump Revives the Liberals in Canada

Germany: Absolute Arbitrariness

Israel: Trump’s National Security Adviser Forgot To Leave Personal Agenda at Home and Fell

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Russia: Political Analyst Reveals the Real Reason behind US Tariffs*

Related Articles

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary

Japan: US Administration Losing Credibility 3 Months into Policy of Threats