• GlueBear [they/them, comrade/them]
    ·
    9 hours ago

    If it fucking "sunk" how tf would the US be able to confirm that let alone see that from an image? It's not a ship, it's supposed to be underwater.

    • xiaohongshu [none/use name]
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      The story is bullshit but the pier is too shallow for a submarine to operate safely underwater.

      US nuclear subs, for example, need at least 50-60 ft (16-20 m) under its keel to navigate safely, otherwise they risk running aground in shallow waters. Smaller submarines are better at that, which is why for littoral (coastal) defense, it makes sense to have small Soviet/Russian-made Kilo class SSKs lurking in the coastal area, but it is too dangerous for nuclear subs to do so, not to mention that nuclear subs are far noisier than diesel subs like the Kilos running on batteries.

      Most submarines will sail from the pier to a minimum underwater depth before diving. So it’s very easy to tell if a submarine is “underway” (submarine leaving the pier) or not.

        • FunkyStuff [he/him]
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          actually I think I'll add a bit of hate to this answer. Death to America, death to the Wall Street Journal.

        • GarbageShoot [he/him]
          ·
          7 hours ago

          When you talk without being presumptuous and combative, that's the norm. Of course, you come in being amazingly condescending, so you see your reception.

        • bumpusoot [any]
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Welcome to.. business as usual? Here at least.

        • PointAndClique [they/them]
          ·
          7 hours ago

          ?????

          this is how the comm normally is? Excepting the times where people come in to deliberately stir up shit