Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

More information is on Wikipedia [1]. After reading that article, it definitely sounds like the quoted statement was created from within some kind of reality distortion field.

To add to your original comment: the US pilot insisted that the plane was on autopilot (and thus he was hit by the Chinese pilot, not vice versa), the Chinese pilot had a history of flying way too close to US planes, and the US plane "landed without permission" because it was so damaged after the event that the crew was on the verge of bailing out.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident




It's funny, it didn't occur to me that there'd be anyone who didn't already know all about it. Not meant to be a comment on you, just me not thinking about it enough.

Your elaboration is exactly right on all counts. And to add a bit more, even if none of that were true, it still makes no sense for a lumbering reconnaissance plane to "ram" a maneuverable fighter jet that intercepted it. It would be like a container ship "ramming" a jet-ski. Even if it wanted to, it simply can't maneuver to make it happen.


> Not meant to be a comment on you, just me not thinking about it enough.

No slight taken. I was still in middle school when the Hainan Island incident happened, and I figured there's a sizable young population on HN that's in the same boat. Young kids tend not to pay as much attention to the machinations of foreign policy.


I figured it was probably due to age. I was in college at the time and it was big news for quite a while, although very much in a "if you're paying attention to the news" kind of way, not something that made people stand up and pay attention like the events that overshadowed it later that year.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: