SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - A new slant on RIMPAC Naval politics/The Fight To Control The South China Sea

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- Sub & Naval Discussions: World Naval News, Books, & Films (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=186)

- - A new slant on RIMPAC Naval politics/The Fight To Control The South China Sea (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=214616)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikalugin (Post 2353806)

Raising power, established power. Someone said peloponesian wars?

Indeed: Aegospotamii of the Pacific
It all will come down to Fomosa, our trump card in their 'gandu' and ....
http://www.animatedimages.org/data/m...image-0003.gifThis is retaliation for???? : "Chinese navy ships entered U.S. territorial waters off Alaska in September, coming within 12 miles of the coastline during President Barack Obama's visit to the state, U.S. officials told CNN at the time.
The officials emphasized that China's actions were consistent with "innocent passage" under international maritime law." Apparently the Chinese bastards have privileges we do not. They don't allow us the same twelve mile limit 'innocent passage'. Perhaps they're just better than we are! The sabers are definitely rattling; we need to resolve this swiftly and decisively on our short time-span vs China's 50 year long-term plan....appeasement and delay solves nothing. Throw in the industrial/hacking spying and the Yaun devaluation to afflict our economy: we are clearly at war already.

Well, if you look at the balance of power it is shifting, it appears that US could no longer (for example) establish air dominance over Taiwan. I wonder where it would get by 2020 and 2025 and 2030.

That said, we are not doing all that stellar either, we only get 450 newly built (2007-2020, hard sighned contracts and already built aircraft) T10 (aka Flanker) series (Su30SM, Su34, Su35S and few Su30M2s) in our Armed Forces (split between RuASF and MA of RuN), plus modernised legacy aircraft. Not sure if it is adequate :(

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikalugin

it appears that US could no longer (for example) establish air dominance over Taiwan.

Precisely! http://www.animatedimages.org/data/m...image-0003.gif :lurk:I never said over! Aircraft tend to be tactical...this is a strategic problem...navies are strategic; and right now our strategic is (a tad) better than theirs; time IMHO to throw their timing off and free Tibet while were at it. Not responding over 50 years ago 'appeasement and delay solves nothing' probably due to racism and disregard for 'brown people's sovereignty has set this current problem in motion. We saw the same naval confrontation buildup in 1914; nothing new here, including enlightenment and/or the lack therof! The Sino-aggrandizement of global resources (greed) will not stop of its own accord.

US has an overall strategic advantage in both conventional and nuclear arms.

The problem is that the conventional advantage is no longer great enough to assure complete US domination, provided the war is short/local due to nukes and begins with PRC holding the initiative.

I believe the Chinese are doing its best to complete their work on these island and they are going to use every "democratically bureaucracy step" they can to prevent USA and other countries nearby to from stopping them fulfilling their goal.

Markus

Here's one artists take on what's happening in the South China Sea. http://jollyjack.deviantart.com/art/...-Sea-568680977

http://img10.deviantart.net/2e09/i/2...ck-d9ekt1t.jpgOf course little did Britain realize when the 99 year lease was up: China's long-term strategy was "today Hong Kong tomorrow the world"! Whether Vietnam, Iraq/Afghanistan, Syria/Israel or the present Chinese expansion, post-colonial collapse cleanup is a major US endless drudgery and were not really very good at it. NOTE: China has just revoked it's one baby policy(boys preferred). Two are now permissible to correct the gender(wife-shortage) imbalance: Just great!....1,000,000,000+ Sino baby-makers expanding the population...in a world of dwindling resources:dead:

A fat boy and his toys...a bird... an ICBM???

Risking another attack by N. Korea on our Music thread:O:: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/495d344a0d10421e9baa8ee77029cfbd/Article_2016-02-05-AS--NKorea-Rockets%20vs%20Missiles/id-cc1374508794420082a515f1abb1e0ae

Quote:

Japan has deployed PAC-3 missile batteries in the heart of Tokyohttp://hosted2.ap.org/CBImages/?medi...oB640TJQ%3d%3d to shoot down any incoming rocket debris. South Korea is reportedly mobilizing two Aegis-equipped destroyers. The U.S. is already gunning to punish Pyongyang for what it says will be a ballistic missile test in the guise of a space launch....other experts who spoke to The Associated Press say the devil is in the details.
The distinction between a rocket used to lift a satellite into space and a long-range ballistic missile is highly technical but of crucial importance to understanding North Korea's motives and capabilities and in forming a realistic and effective strategy to deal with them. It is also crucial to understand the limitations of what space rocket launches contribute to the North's ability to develop military-use missiles.
According to some, that isn't necessarily very much.
"A real ICBM is a weapon system that has to hit a given target on the other side of the world, being launched at any condition with the push of a button almost instantly," said Markus Schiller, a prominent expert on North Korean missile technology and founder of Munich-based ST Analytics. "Just launching a small satellite carrier every other year, which uses different technology than required for a real ICBM, does not get you much closer to this goal."
"They gain experience by launching a large rocket like Unha," said Schiller. "But this is just one minor of so many steps required for a real ICBM, and the Unha is definitely designed as a satellite launcher."
David Wright, co-director and senior scientist with the Global Security Program of the Union of Concerned Scientists, also warned against quickly dismissing Pyongyang's space launches as a smoke screen.

A little over 51 and 1/2 years ago the USN and USA had to make a quick decision: http://www.ussturnerjoy.org/ship-history/

Quote:

The USS Turner Joy joined the USS Kitty Hawk task group for operations in the Philippine Sea, followed by a cruise through the South China Sea to Japan. In late July, Turner Joy, while attached to the USS Ticonderoga carrier group, began making “Desoto” patrols off the coast of Vietnam. These were intelligence collection patrols intended to intercept North Vietnamese Army communications and relay them to South Vietnamese forces.

On the afternoon of August 2nd, USS Maddox (DD 731), under the command of CDR H. L. Ogier, which was engaged in a similar patrol in the Gulf of Tonkin, reported being attacked by three North Vietnamese motor torpedo boats. Maddox returned fire. Ronald G. Stalsberg, a gunners mate in mount 51 puts it this way, “Turret one fired the first shots of the battles in the Gulf of Tonkin, and the first shots fired in anger by the U.S. Navy in the Vietnam War.” As she engaged the torpedo boats she reported up the chain of command and called for assistance. Turner Joy, under the command of Commander Robert C. Barnhart, responded, as did four F-8 Crusaders flying off of USS Ticonderoga. Maddox scored hits on the torpedo boats and the F-8s strafed them, leaving one of them dead in the water and sinking. By the time Turner Joy reached Maddox, the surviving torpedo boats had fled, and both ships were ordered out of the Gulf of Tonkin.

On August 3rd, they were ordered back to the Gulf, under the operational control of CAPT John J. Herrick (Commander of Task Group 72.1), to continue their Desoto patrols in company and to “show the flag” in international waters off the coast of North Vietnam. What happened next has been in dispute since that day.

At about 8PM local time on August 4th, in rough weather and heavy seas, both Maddox and Turner Joy, based on radar and sonar contacts, reported a number of what appeared to be small, high-speed surface craft approaching, but at extreme range. As a precaution, the two destroyers, once again, called Ticonderoga for air support.

By nightfall, radar and sonar plots suggested that North Vietnamese small craft were converging on the two American warships from the west and south. Turner Joy reported that she sighted one or two torpedo wakes, then rang up full speed, maneuvered radically to evade torpedoes, and began firing her 5” guns at the unidentified radar returns.

Over the next three and a half hours, Maddox, Turner Joy, and planes from Ticonderoga fired at the suspected hostile craft and reported that at least two were sunk by direct hits and another two severely damaged, and that the remaining boats retired rapidly to the north. In an after action report, CAPT Herrick, the officer in tactical command, who observed both the August 2nd and August 4th actions from the combat information center in USS Maddox stated, “Review of action makes many reported contacts and torpedoes fired appear doubtful. Freak weather effects on radar and overeager sonarmen may have accounted for many reports. No actual visual sightings by Maddox. Suggest complete evaluation before any further action taken.” He further stated, “Entire action leaves many doubts except for apparent ambush at beginning. Suggest thorough reconnaissance in daylight by aircraft.” When asked for clarification of his reports he said, “My sources of information were from radar scopes, radio circuits and displayed and evaluated information from the CIC of the USS Maddox. I had no opportunity to visually sight by unaided human eye any of the action. However, it is my opinion that certainly a PT boat action did take place.” Interestingly, the statement of Commander Barnhart, Turner Joy’s CO, was somewhat less emphatic: “During the alleged action with the torpedo boats on the night of 4 August 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin, I was conning the ship. Until I can find a suitable period of time to reflect on the overall engagement, the only evidence I actually saw that would indicate “something” was being hit with our 5″/54 gunfire was a column of black smoke rising from the surface of the water. When I attempted to come around to close the smoke, another surface contact was reported to be closing the Turner Joy from astern. This target was taken under fire also but nothing visually was sighted by me to indicate it was hit. By the time I was able to maneuver the ship around to investigate the column of black smoke previously sighted, it had disappeared from my view. As a general statement, I believe we were attacked by an unknown number of torpedo boats for reasons as set forth in previous messages.”

The reconnaissance Herrick suggested was conducted the next day, and did not locate any debris from a surface gun engagement. No oil slicks, no floating debris, no destroyed ships hulks. Commander Ogier, Maddox’s CO was unequivocal. “I believed at the time that the Maddox was under attack by PT boats. Later I doubted that so many torpedoes could have been fired and have missed. I am now convinced that the torpedo attacks did take place.”

Statements from Turner Joy crewmembers after the engagement were unanimous in their firm belief that they had been attacked. Typical of these is the one from Seaman Dennis Plzak, “I am a radarman seaman and was manning the surface search radar on the night of August 4, 1964. I picked up several small contacts (three to five) on my scope approximately twelve miles away and tracked them into short range. I wasn’t sure of them being genuine contacts until they were in short range. I have spent many hours on the surface search and I evaluate them as definite contacts. It appeared to me that there was a definite plan used by the craft. At one time I held clearly three contacts, one directly astern of us and two moving in and out. Could not tell size of contacts due to short range scale. I saw one contact being hit by burst from our mounts approximately four times and then completely disappear from the scope. I definitely evaluate I held three contacts on my scope.”

Boatswains Mate third class Donald Sharkey was equally adamant. “I saw on 4 August 1964 at about 2300, a PT Boat while engaged in a night gunnery engagement against surface contacts. My station is Mount 32 as 3″/50 second loader. I saw flare off starboard side of ship so was watching same looking for contact. At this time a PT boat came between the ship and the flare bearing about one hundred degrees relative. The outline of this contact was clearly seen by me and was definitely a PT boat.”

However none of the statements mentioned secondary explosions, oil slicks or post explosion fires, all of which you would expect to see if you hit a torpedo boat with a 5” shell.

Whether or not the North Vietnamese attacked the two ships on August 4th remains a mystery. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson commented privately: “For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there.” John Prados, head of the National Security Archive’s Vietnam and Intelligence Documentation Projects, in his essay The Gulf of Tonkin Incident, 40 Years Later, called it “a complex weaving of fiction from threads of fact.”

The North Vietnamese deny it categorically. In 1995, in a meeting with former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, retired Vietnamese Defense Minister Vo Nguyen Giap denied that Vietnamese gunboats had attacked American destroyers on August 4, while admitting to the attack on August 2.

It could well have been that high seas and the “freak weather conditions” mentioned by CAPT Herrick and for which the Gulf of Tonkin is famous, caused “sea return” which an inexperienced or adrenalin charged radar operator classified as legitimate contacts. Unlike the engagement on the 2nd, the action of the 4th was marked by frequent fading of radar contacts and their subsequent reappearance. And fire control systems on both ships had great difficulty locking on for any significant length of time.

But if you read the statements of her captain and crew, they have absolutely no doubt that they were attacked, and in view of the events two days earlier, decided to take aggressive action. No amount of Monday morning quarterbacking will change that.

In any event, the engagements of August 2nd and 4th came to be known as the “Gulf of Tonkin Incident” and prompted retaliation from the United States. President Johnson ordered Operation Pierce Arrow and the next day, August 5th, Ticonderoga, joined by USS Constellation, launched 64 sorties against the bases and oil dumps that supported the North Vietnamese torpedo boats. In the course of those raids, the U.S. lost two planes to anti-aircraft fire, killing LTJG Richard C. Sather, pilot of an A1 Skyraider. The second aircraft was an A-4 Skyhawk piloted by LTJG Everett Alvarez Jr. who became the first U.S. prisoner of war in Vietnam.

That same day, August 5th, in a speech at Syracuse University titled The Communist Challenge in Southeast Asia, President Johnson said, “The Gulf of Tonkin may be distant, but none can be detached about what has happened there. Aggression–deliberate, willful, and systematic aggression–has unmasked its face to the entire world. The world remembers-the world must never forget–that aggression unchallenged is aggression unleashed.” His remarks are ironically compatible with Admiral Joy’s conviction that “only the ‘imminent threat of application of our military power’ would compel Communist governments throughout the world to ‘negotiate seriously.’

He wrote that the ‘greatest single influence on the Korean armistice negotiations
was the failure of the United States to take punitive action against China following its entry into the conflict.”

Most importantly the Gulf of Tonkin Incident prompted Congress to pass and President Johnson to sign the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, the legal foundation for increased American involvement in the Vietnam War.

Honestly I tried to edit it, but I just couldn't resist ...
Least we should forget is the major reason I posted it :yep:
I hope we don't rush into this one. :hmmm:

Meanwhile RuASF and Naval/Army Aviation grow.

http://www.globalaffairs.ru/global-p...duschego-17997

Quote:

By 2020.
- Up to 130 long range bombers (16 Tu160s, 50 Tu95MS, up to 70 Tu22M3).
- Up to 820 fighters (12 T-50, 100 Su35S, 200 Su30SM, 20 Su30M2, 100 Su27SM/SM3, 120 non modernised Su27S and Su33, 150 modernised MiG31s, 36 MiG35, 50 MiG29SMT, 24 MiG29KR/KUBR).
- Up to 350 recon and strike aircraft (up to 150 Su34s, up to 200 modernised Su24M and Su24MR).
- Up to 180 attack aircraft (Su25SM/Su25UB).

2010-present day:
Contracted: 387 newly built combat fixed wing aircraft.
Completed: 234 newly built combat fixed wing aircraft.
Contracted: 450 newly built combat helicopters.
Completed: over 250 newly built combat helicopters.

So much for STEALTH: if U rattle the sabre it they gotta C it!

Four U.S. F-22 stealth fighters fly over Osan Air Base in Pyeongtaek, South Korea, Feb. 17, 2016.http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/5129...7067006c32.jpg

Quote:

"It has become clear that we cannot break North Korea's will to develop nuclear weapons through existing means and goodwill," she said. "It's time to find a fundamental solution for bringing practical change in North Korea and to show courage in putting that into action."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/02/17/us-jets-fly-over-s-korea/80489196/

SAMs take on Uncle Sam

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

Apparently the Chinese bastards have privileges we do not.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/china-accuses-us-militarizing-south-china-sea-37048956 "

Quote:

China on Friday accused the U.S. of militarizing the South China Sea, just days after it was revealed Beijing had deployed surface-to-air missiles on an island in the hotly disputed area.http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/...29_634x474.jpg
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei told reporters that patrols by U.S. military aircraft and Navy vessels, along with joint exercises involving regional partners were the true reason why concerns were growing over peace and stability.
"The above actions have escalated tensions in the South China Sea, and that's the real militarization of the South China Sea," Hong said.:x
U.S. and Taiwanese officials this week confirmed commercial satellite images showing the missiles placed on Woody Island in the disputed Paracel chain.
China has not denied the appearance of the missiles, but says it is entitled to defend its territory and points to the construction of lighthouses, weather stations and other infrastructure undertaken to provide more "public goods and services to the international community."

See! no problems; they're helping the international community....AHEM

Quote:

Vietnam, which along with Taiwan also claims the Paracels, issued a diplomatic note to the Chinese Embassy in Hanoi on Friday to demand a stop to what it called "China's infringement of Vietnam's sovereignty" over the islands....The Philippines, which claims waters and features east of Woody island, on Friday said it was "gravely concerned" by reports of the missile deployments. Although not one of the six governments with claims in the South China Sea, the U.S. says it has a national interest in the region's stability and freedom of navigation and overflight in and above what are some of the world's busiest sea lanes.

I see it now; Like the Romans we will go to war sooner or later in the classic guise of helping our downtrodden allies...:ping::ping::ping: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-3454309/China-accuses-US-militarizing-South-China-Sea.html http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/...50_634x462.jpgMORE BS from Beijing: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-01/31/c_135061650.htm

Quote:

Sending a warship to another country's territorial waters without notice is hardly the right thing to do, regardless protocols and codes.
The Saturday maneuvers of a U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer 12 nautical miles off Zhongjian Dao, Xisha Islands, was "deliberate provocation", according to China's Defense Ministry spokesman Yang Yujun.

It also drew angry outcry from Chinese on the Internet, with many comments much more radical than the official response. The Chinese people have every reason to feel offended. Since the 1970s, the U.S. has asserted its maritime power through the Freedom of Navigation program. It has been accustomed to hegemony and power politics, but the times have changed. Compromising sovereignty and security of another country under the name of freedom has lost its facade.

Also since the 1970s, countries including the Philippines and Vietnam have invaded and occupied islands and reefs in Chinese waters, bringing about the current disputes..

So much for 'innocent passage' beyond a twelve mile limit??!!-they can; we can't.!??

Today's paper-the real fight at sea

The fight that might kill us all: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/166031942b254ebfa8c4311c653797e8/fishing-amid-territorial-disputes-south-china-sea http://binaryapi.ap.org/9d059373c8f3...c0c75/460x.jpg<Who's Coast is it?

Quote:

As Asian countries jostle for territory in the South China Sea, one Filipino fisherman is taking a stand. He has faced down Chinese coast guard rifles, and even engaged in a stone-throwing duel with the Chinese last month that shattered two windows on his outrigger.
"They'll say, 'Out, out of Scarborough,'" Renato Etac says, referring to Scarborough Shoal, a rocky outcropping claimed by both the Philippines and China. He yells back, "Where is the document that shows Scarborough is Chinese property?"

At one level, the territorial disputes in the South China Sea are a battle of wills between American and Chinese battleships and planes. At another level, they are cat-and-mouse chases between the coast guards of several countries and foreign fishermen, and among the fishing boats themselves.

Indonesia seized a Chinese fishing boat last month and arrested eight fishermen, only to have a Chinese coast guard vessel ram the fishing boat as it was being towed, allowing it to escape.
Vietnam's coast guard chased away more than 100 Chinese boats over a two-week period, its state media reported this week, and made a rare seizure of a Chinese ship carrying 100,000 liters (26,400 gallons) of diesel oil, reportedly for sale to fishing boats in the area.

Throw in earlier this month off Argentina and I call it WWIII http://bigstory.ap.org/article/0ca3857f56b74c118ac2f63b3aa1d05f/argentine-navy-sinks-illegal-fishing-boat-chinese-flag

Quote:

Argentina's navy announced Tuesday that it used gunfire to sink a boat Chinese-flagged boat that was fishing illegally in national waters. China's government said it expressed its serious concern to Argentina and called for an investigation
The navy statement said the boat was intercepted Monday off the coast of Puerto Madryn, about 907 miles (1,460 kilometers) south of Buenos Aires.

The statement said the boat did not heed warning calls and instead tried to ram an Argentine naval vessel. Sailors then shot holes in different parts of the fishing boat, causing it to sink, the navy said.

The Falkland Island War aside(nobody's a saint:O:) YEAY [

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aktungbby (Post 2355013)

http://img10.deviantart.net/2e09/i/2...ck-d9ekt1t.jpg

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/04...kong-port.html

Quote:

China blocked a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier from arriving at a port in Hong Kong as tensions ratcheted up over disputed islands in the South China Sea, a Pentagon spokesman confirmed Friday.

The USS John C. Stennis and escort ships had planned to visit the port next week, Stars & Stripes reports. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not explain why it denied the request.

"We have a long track record of successful port visits to Hong Kong, including with the current visit of the USS Blue Ridge, and we expect that will continue,” Cmdr. Bill Urban told Fox News. The USS Blue Ridge is a Navy command ship.

China claims virtually all of the strategically vital South China Sea and has tried to shore up its control by building islands on coral reefs complete with airstrips, harbors and radar stations.

I suspect the current POTUS reaction will be almost identical to other area hotspots during his tenure which in all fairness amount to very little.

Now if Trump were to be the next POTUS, would we see the creation of islands cropping up next to those the Chinese are creating? :)

My best guess is Trump would build walls around each of these Chinese island and thereafter demand The Chinese to pay what they cost.

Back to business thinking of another thread

If this should develop into some kind of Conflict between Chinese and USA, Japan and maybe some other country in that area, I could very well imagine, NK trying to do something "not so clever" against SK.

Markus

Beijing’s claims to South China Sea rejected by international tribunal

An International Tribunal has ruled China does not have any rights to justify it's claims to an important strategic and economic waterway. China has positioned advanced weaponry on man made Islands as garrisons. China has laid claims to a great deal of the South China Sea and has tried to set up exclusion and identification zones.

The ruling was strongly in favor of Philippines claims.

" Quote "
Some $5 trillion in commerce, roughly one third of global trade, flow through the waters of the South China Sea every year, while its fisheries account for 12 percent of the global catch and significant oil and gas reserves are thought to exist under the sea floor. Yet the waters are some of the most fiercely disputed in the world, with claims to various parts staked by Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Taiwan.

The United States has already conducted several “freedom of navigation” exercises in the South China Sea, sending warships within 12 nautical miles of islands, reefs and rocks controlled by China and other claimants. It is also rebuilding military ties with the Philippines. China cites this as evidence that it is President Obama’s actions — not its island-building – that are responsible for militarizing the region.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...5b1_story.html

Moderator: please move to the 'appropriate' thread:D http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=214616

Ten years ago I thought that China would stick to its somewhat non-expansive tradition of foreign policies and would not militarily expand. I ruled out a chance for a major US-China war, therefore.

However, back then I made one mistake: I did not take into account their claim for historically claimed grounds and territories, that is so absurd to me like Italy claiming territories on the grounds of the widest expansion of Imperial Rome. I thus failed to take such a thinking into account.

Today I think that there will be a next great international war, a real major one, within this century, and that the waterways near China and the ressources in the disputed sea areas will be the reason for it. The major battlefields will be the seas, but the cyberspace as well.

And I fear the US is not on the right way to win it. It gets outnumbered, technology gaps narrow down, and the Americans for my taste base far too much on the WWII concpetion of aircraft carriers. But their untouchability I compare to that of the German U-Boats in the late stage of WWII when they were no longer the hunters, but the hunted. Militaries tend to plan the next war in the fashion they had won the last war, and that all too often is the recipe for getting defeated. In other words: aircraft carriers today are more political weapons and weapons for striking against weak and inferior enemies - not a power of your own strength and calibre.

I would not be surprised if autonomous drones as weapon platforms play the decisive role in such a war. There may be ethical implicaitons - but in military logic making drones autonomous is the logical and necessary next step.

Hope is that China continues to become a High-Tech nation - and by that becoming as vulnerable and dependent as Western high tech nations are, so that just a few swift blows to the economic infrastructure can spell decisive desaster. A heavyweight boxing fight, so to speak, where just one blow can knock the other out. You rarely have that in lighter weight classes.

Until then, other things, namely the crisis of debts and paper currencies, will continue to have a forming effect on how that war will be fought, and how well or ill prepared the US will be.

I assume that by then Europe will be militarily so impotent that it will play no role in a China-America war. Thinking about British and French navies.

Hope I am already dead when that war happens. When the end of your life knocks on your door, last thing you want needing to witness, is such a disaster.