Comments by "" (@Rav01508) on "New York Post"
channel.
-
The "Zhou-class vessel" is not something that I think we've heard much/anything about in public reporting, so the fact that it even exists is surprising.
Moreover, this happened at Wuhan, not Huludao, which is significant, as Wuhan is typically not used for nuclear powered vessel construction, as far as I know. Thus it seems that this may be a one-off specialized vessel for testing purposes(?). Genuinely not sure.
Intriguingly, the article says: "While the submarine was salvaged, it will likely take many months before it can be put to sea."
Yes Michael R Gordon and Thomas Shugart are complete tools, and the former has a history of repeating incorrect USG-sourced info (see: his Iraq War reporting). But as I have noted below, this whole situation has enough photographic evidence to suggest that the story has at least some level of truth validity. Could it ultimately prove false, a misinterpretation, or outright propaganda? Yes. But using deflection as an rhetorical tool to respond to this story is hardly increasing the credibility of denials.
Shugart, the og source for the photos, clearly misidentified some shadows as a submarine. But then again, if the submarine was wholly underneath the water, we wouldn't see any obvious surface protrusions anyways. This story may be low confidence intelligence being re-stated as seemingly high confidence (something Gordon has done in the past), with the anonymous senior defense official being quoted just bs'ing for PR purposes (not like he can say anything truly class without getting in serious trouble in most cases). Note how the anonymous official that is quoted never actually confirms or denies the core claim of the story (that a nuclear powered submarine sunk at the pier). The syntax of the quote seems to indicate that it was Gordon, the journalist, who first brought the claim of a sunken submarine to the attention of the anon official, who then reacted to it, and had his quote reprinted. Thus Gordon was leading the official on rather than reporting an original declaration based on classified intel.
I wouldn't take WSJ's coverage on Chinese military matters seriously, that's not their field.
Everyone knows that Wuhan doesn't build nuclear subs, that's Huludao's job. Wuhan builds conventional subs.
China as a matter of national policy does not build any kind of conventional nuclear reactor upstream of major rivers. A nuclear reactor accident in Wuhan would contaminate everything downstream, which includes some of the most densely populated and wealthiest regions of China.
Last time, the fuel tanks of Chinese missiles were filled with water.
This time, the Chinese nuclear submarine sank and was still filled with water.
It seems that the biggest enemy of the PLA is water. Only water can defeat the PLA. I strongly recommend that the United States research new weapons related to water.
Do any of those American heroes have water-related superpowers? LAMO
Zhou is not a class of nuclear submarines. China only has 1 class of nuclear submarine, the Shang, or Type 09III.
Wuhan does not build nuclear subs.
Nuclear subs don't go to Wuhan, which is almost 1000kms inland.
Guessing this article is based off another with satellite imagery of some barges around a conventional sub.
All of China's current commercial nuclear power plants are located along the coast!
The current American media equals the 1980s Soviet Pravda. If you look at the latter, you will see that it was full of completely made-up stories about an imminent American collapse.
13
-
2