China owned port to host Chinese Submarines in L.A. Harbor

Originally posted by Muaddib

Every chinese company is owned and controlled by the CCP, the Chinese military.

Are you kiddin me? Nearly all of China's businesses are privately owned... Wow! This is unbelievable, how do people get away with saying stuff like this?

Before you ARGUE against China, can you at least "learn" a little more about China?

Sub-Logic

Source article: China's "COSCO" Building Tsunami Class Submarines for Pier J, Long Beach, CA

The Petition states that the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) and the Red Chinese have a base of operations at Pier J in Long Beach, CA. Cosco plans to operate modern "Tusunami Class" submarines, which can enter L.A. Harbor at Pier J and threaten the National Security of the U.S.

Um, I may have missed the part where someone demonstrated how this makes any sense whatsoever.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, and may duplicate some of what has been said, but:

1. Submarines are not designed to threaten anyone from ports.

The whole purpose of submarines is to avoid detection. Sailing into L.A. Harbor to launch weapons is not an advisable submarine warfare strategy.

2. Submarine bases should not be located next to their submarines' targets.

Aside from risking collateral damage from friendly fire and other safety issues, it exposes the base to immediate retaliation and, in general, tends to weaken the element of surprise.

3. Submarines require extensive logistical support.

All such support, including maintenance, repair, supply, weapons magazines, personnel services and so forth would be subject to U.S. legal jurisdiction if they are on U.S. soil. Does China really want OSHA inspecting their submarine base for work safety violations, or their weapons stockpiles for EPA compliance?

4. Any submarine coming within hundreds of miles of the U.S. is subject to intense surveillance.

I'm sure U.S. military intelligence officials would be ecstatic to have Chinese submarines in L.A. Harbor, where they could photograph them day and night, monitor and analyze their maintenance and systems, track their movements, arrange follow-on surveillance whenever the boats leave port, and probably find out more about them than most of the crew knows. I consider it unlikely that China would choose to volunteer this sort of information.

I appreciate the propensity of some members to freak out for any reason -- I get a little twitchy myself, sometimes -- but this has got to be one of the silliest threads I've seen in a while, and make no mistake, the competition for that distinction is fierce.

Granted, maybe I'm wrong, but the fundamental premise of this story defies credibility. :shk:

Well Majic, your statements would have a ring of truth if all these facts didn't exist:

1.)Such concerns were not raised by the US Seaport Commission Executive Director.

2.) If the mentioned company was not owned by the CCP, in other words the Chinese military.

3.) If the companies owned by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) were not caught red handed trying to illegally import weapons, and missiles, that we know of, in U.S. soil.

4.) If the CCP hadn't announced that the merchant ships of COSCO are considered as warships by the CCP.

No Foreign control of U.S. Seaports - Statement of the U.S. Seaports Commision

U.S. Customs caught the Chinese Overseas Shipping Company smuggling 2,000 fully automatic AK-47 assault rifles - destined for Los Angeles street gangs – aboard The Empress Phoenix. The guns were manufactured by China’s Poly Technologies, which is owned and managed by the Chinese government. Court documents reveal that Poly Technologies planned to expand their smuggling into the U.S. to Chinese-made hand grenades, mortars, RPG-7 anti-tank rockets and hand-held anti-aircraft missiles capable of knocking commercial airliners out of the sky.

Another Chinese company, owned by the CCP, that was caught red handed trying to illegally import anti-aircraft missiles.

Chinese exporter linked to missile scheme

By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 26, 2005

Federal investigators have linked a Chinese state-run export company to a conspiracy to sell surface-to-air missiles in the United States, Justice Department officials said.

The China Xinshidai Group, a conglomerate of several Chinese state-run manufacturers, is accused in a scheme to illegally export Chinese missiles to the United States through organized crime groups.

"This is all part of the conspiracy to sell, essentially, surface-to-air missiles manufactured by the Xinshidai company in China," one official said. (Continued at source)

Shall we take a look at other facts about COSCO?

Capital Markets Transparency and Security:
The Nexus Between U.S.-China Security Relations and America's Capital Markets

COSCO: China Ocean Shipping Company, or Cosco, was deemed by the U.S. House of Representatives Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare to be a military-related entity. According to the Task Force report, "Although presented as a commercial entity, Cosco is actually an arm of the Chinese Military."116 The shipping firm was reportedly denied its request to lease a Long Beach naval base due primarily to national security considerations according to an Investor's Business Daily report and was implicated in the delivery of advanced weaponry and, possibly, proscribed proliferation-related materials from China to Pakistan and Iran.117 A Cosco ship was also involved in the failed 1996 attempt by China to smuggle automatic weapons to California street gangs.118 More recently, the company was cited by the Washington Times for its role in transporting weapons to Cuba.

Mr. Moseley, in his statement about Dubai and COSCO also mentions that COSCO ships are seen as zhanjian, or warships by the CCP.

No Foreign control of U.S. Seaports

COSCO is owned 100% by the communist Chinese military, and COSCO ships have been deployed in Chinese military exercises and are designated as zhanjian, or “warship.” Hong Kong’s Ming Pao newspaper reported that China’s Navy is stepping up its refitting of China’s COSCO ships for use in war.

Anyone that is not concerned by this is obviously not seeing the whole picture.


We have a company that is owned by the Chinese Communist Party. The CCP views COSCO ships as warships, and COSCO transports military equipment for the CCP often, not only that but COSCO has been found red handed at trying to smuggle illegal chinese weapons, and anti-aircraft missiles, the ones we have found but how many could have slipped under the radar of U.S. agencies?, alongside some other military weapons.

The CCP also owns the largest ports in both sides of the Panam Canal, and they now own Pier J in Long Beach LA.

CCP officials have made threats that they are more than ready to destroy U.S. cities, and they have said that war with the United States is inevitable...

Yet, despite all this there are people that want to dismiss all these facts and say "anyone who brings this up is just trying to scare people" or that "people are just freaking out for anything?".......

[edit on 22-3-2006 by Muaddib]

[Mod Edit - Please use correct BB Code tags for external quotes. Thank you - Jak]

[edit on 23/3/06 by JAK]

Update on this story.

I sent an email to Jon Moseley, US Seaport Commission Executive Director, and I asked him about the alleged report, he has responded back, but he asked me not to post anything, since he wants to make sure he says everything himself, just the right way.

I have contacted a couple of our moderators in ATSNN and asked them how they want to handle this, as soon as I recieve a response, and after I come back from work, I will be sending an email back to Mr. Moseley with a link to the forum.

This will be a very interesting development, if anyone is truly interested in this, stay tuned.

Here is the ATSNN link where most probably Mr. Moseley will respond to, unless the moderators want to handle this differently.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 22-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Well to anyone who hasn't read the update from Mr. Moseley, you should check the ATSNN link which I gave in my previous post.

We now know for certain that COSCO wants to put two submarines in U.S. soil, and disguise them as "civilian ships". As for what motives could be behind this move by COSCO, we can only speculate, but all the scenarios are bad as we know full well that the company COSCO, and other CCP companies working in the U.S. have been caught red handed trying to smuggle chinese weapons, and anti-aircraft missiles, and who knows what else or how many things they were able to smuggle in.

I recommend any, and every American to send letters to their Representatives, to Congress, and to the president, and tell them that COSCO is a danger for the national security of the United States.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by Muaddib]

We now know for certain that COSCO wants to put two submarines in U.S. soil, and disguise them as "civilian ships".

We do?!?

We know know a guy named Sean Jester is claiming that China is building 18,000 ton submarines. We know he's affiliated with something called the US Seaports Commission, which is pretty clearly a citizens group and not a government agency. Beyond that, we still don't know much more than we did at the time of the initial post.

Sub-Optimal Conditions

Originally posted by Muaddib
Well Majic, your statements would have a ring of truth if all these facts didn't exist:

Nothing you've presented explains how basing Chinese submarines in L.A. Harbor would make a lick of sense.

Please don't misunderstand me: I'm not suggesting in any way, shape or form that China is a trusty, reliable friend of the U.S. and that we can turn our backs and whistle tunelessly as they go about their business.

Hardly.

I'm just extremely suspicious of any theory that would have the Chinese doing something that doesn't make sense.

Maybe thinking of it this way would help: just how eager do you think the U.S. is to base our submarines in China?

Why would that be a good idea?

Dude, I used to ride around in one of these things. Believe me when I tell you that you don't want to park your submarine in your enemy's garage.

I'm not saying China isn't up to all manner of skulduggery and flim-flammery.

I'm just saying we should give them a little credit.






P.S. Also, as always, I could be wrong. Maybe we're talking mini-subs, or something, although there would be issues with those, as well.

And please, please don't for a moment think I'm discouraging the investigation of these claims. I say go nuts and see where this rabbit-hole leads. No reason not to look.

Just don't be surprised to find a lot of rabbit droppings at the bottom.


[edit on 3/22/2006 by Majic]

Originally posted by xmotex

We do?!?

We know know a guy named Sean Jester is claiming that China is building 18,000 ton submarines. We know he's affiliated with something called the US Seaports Commission, which is pretty clearly a citizens group and not a government agency. Beyond that, we still don't know much more than we did at the time of the initial post.

Nice try xmotex....

Let's find out what we do know shall we? I want to see how you are going to dismiss the following information, which if you had bothered to read what was said by Jonathan Moseley, this information that COSCO is buying these submarines comes from AL Santoli, who translated from Chinese an official announcement by COSCO that they were going to buy those submarines.

Let's see who Al Santoli is.

Al Santoli

Director and President of the Asia-America Initiative.

Mr. Santoli is a noted specialist on security issues in the Asia-Pacific region. He is a Pulitzer Prize and American Book Award-nominated best-selling author of military history, including EVERYTHING WE HAD: An Oral History of the Vietnam War. He is a Vietnam infantry veteran who received three Purple Hearts. His areas of expertise include Chinese foreign and security policy, transnational crime and terrorism in Asia, and U.S.-Taiwan policy. He is the editor of the Asia America Initiative's China In-Focus and Asia Security Focus.

Excerpted from.
www.uscc.gov...

Mr. Santoli, which i will try to get in contact with, says in one of his websites.

China Reform Monitor No. 266, December 23, 1999
American Foreign Policy Council, Washington, D.C.

COSCO orders two submarines for "special purpose";
China spy manual for military technology detailed
Editor: Al Santoli

December 8
China's China Ocean Shipping Company [COSCO] has contracted the building of two 18,000 ton submarines for the formation of the COSCO Guangzhou "special purpose" fleet, reports the COSCO Web site News Center. The designs of the two submersible vessels were copied from the works of European companies. An advanced electronic propelling system was included in the design. COSCO adds, this is the first order that China's domestic shipyards have ever received for the building of such vessels.

Excerpted from.
www.afpc.org...

I will be contacting Mr. Santoli, but I am almost certain you will try to find another excuse to dismiss this.

Anyways, we'll see, if I am able to convince him, to tell us what he knows in the forums.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Majic
Sub-Optimal Conditions
...........
Nothing you've presented explains how basing Chinese submarines in L.A. Harbor would make a lick of sense.
.........

Majic, I would have thought that you paid attention to what was being said by Jon Moseley.

First of all, he didn't say anything about these submarines docking on the L.A. port, but that COSCO, the company that owns Pier J in LA, is the one that is acquiring these subs according to Al Santoli.

The website where Al Santoli says that COSCO has plans to buy two submarines says the following about the site and Al SAntoli.

For two decades, the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC) has played an essential role in the U.S. foreign policy debate. Founded in 1982, AFPC is a non-profit organization dedicated to bringing information to those who make or influence the foreign policy of the United States and to assisting world leaders, particularly in the former USSR, with building democracies and market economies. AFPC is widely recognized as a source of timely, insightful analysis on issues of foreign policy, and works closely with members of Congress, the Executive Branch and the policymaking community. It is staffed by noted specialists in foreign and defense policy, and serves as a valuable resource to officials in the highest levels of government.

Excerpted from.
www.afpc.org...

The following is the list of staff and experts who work for The American Foreign Policy Council.

AFPC Staff and Experts



Professionals

Herman Pirchner, AFPC President. A leading expert on Russia, Mr. Pirchner has logged over 50 trips to the former Soviet Union and Asia since 1989. His areas of expertise include Russian domestic politics, Russian military and security policy, and Sino-Russian relations.

Kyle Parker, AFPC Vice President for Programs. Mr. Parker has traveled extensively in Russia and frequently accompanies U.S. congressional delegations to the region. His areas of expertise include Russian foreign intelligence, Russian political factions and federalism, and U.S.-Russian political and cultural exchanges.

Ilan Berman, AFPC Vice President for Policy. An expert on regional security in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Russian Federation, Mr. Berman is a frequent contributor to leading journals and newspapers. His areas of expertise include U.S. Middle East policy, Caspian energy issues, missile defense, terrorism and proliferation. He is the editor of the American Foreign Policy Council’s Missile Defense Briefing Report and Eurasia Security Watch, and interim editor of the China Reform Monitor and Asia Security Monitor.

John C. Wobensmith, AFPC Vice President for Development and Senior Fellow in Intelligence Studies. Mr. Wobensmith has over 35 years experience in the national security field, specializing in signals Intelligence, emergency operations, communications and computer security and technical, legislative, diplomatic and corporate liaison. He is a graduate of the National War College and a recipient of the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal. His areas of expertise include: the intelligence community, Turkish politics and policy, public diplomacy and national security education.

Annie Earley, AFPC Director of Communications. A graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Georgetown University, Ms. Earley has studied and worked in the Czech Republic, and traveled extensively throughout Central and Eastern Europe. She serves as the Council’s communications coordinator and media relations contact. Her areas of expertise include public relations and Central and Eastern European affairs.



Fellows and Associates

Jonas Bernstein, Russia Reform Monitor Editor. From 1992 to 2000, Mr. Bernstein worked in Russia as a correspondent for the Moscow Times. His areas of expertise include internal politics and business in Russia, Russian organized crime and corruption, and Russian security policy in the Caucasus.

James S. Robbins, AFPC Senior Fellow in National Security Affairs. Dr. Robbins is a Professor of International Relations at the National Defense University in Washington, DC, and a regular columnist for National Review Online. His views do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense or its components. His areas of expertise are: terrorism and unconventional warfare, U.S. military strategy and military history.

Nancy Lubin, AFPC Senior Fellow for Eurasia. Dr. Lubin is President of JNA Associates, Inc., a research and consulting group on the former USSR, especially the southern tier. She has traveled to Central Asia and the Caucasus for over thirty years as a university professor, Congressional staffer, and corporate consultant. Her areas of expertise include: corruption, drug trafficking, regional security, civil society, youth, and other issues in Central Asia/ Caucasus, and U.S. and international assistance policies.

Joshua Eisenman, AFPC Fellow in Asia Studies. A former professional staff member of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Mr. Eisenman has traveled extensively throughout Northeast and Southeast Asia. He is the co-editor of China and the Developing World: Beijing’s Strategy for the 21st Century (forthcoming in July 2006 from ME Sharpe Publishers), and author of the book’s chapter on Sino-African relations. His areas of expertise include: Sino-Japanese economic and security relations, Chinese domestic politics, China's search for energy and resources in the developing world, Asian trade, and cross-Strait economic and political relations.

E. Wayne Merry, AFPC Senior Associate. Mr. Merry is a retired career Foreign Service officer with over two decades of diplomatic experience in the Soviet Union, post-Soviet Russia, Central Europe, the Balkans, and the United Nations. His areas of expertise include European integration, Russian foreign policy, Central Asian political dynamics, and Greek terrorism.

Bijan R. Kian, AFPC Senior Associate. Mr. Kian is the former director of the Office of Foreign Investment for the State of California. Currently a Principal in the venture firm Global Capital Markets, Inc, he has over 20 years of experience in international relations and foreign policy. His core areas of expertise include: international finance, public diplomacy and Iranian politics.

Evgueni Novikov, Visiting Fellow for Islamic Studies. A former Soviet Communist Party official, Dr. Novikov has over 37 years of experience in the Middle East and Central Asia, and is a noted expert on Islamic ideology. Following his defection to the United States in 1988, he served on the faculty of the U.S. Naval War College and the George C. Marshall Center for Security Studies. His areas of expertise include: terrorism, the "war of ideas" against militant Islam, Central Asian politics and policy, and Muslim youth education.

Excerpted from.
www.afpc.org...

I am excerpting the whole list because there are people...who are trying to dismiss this without anything to back their own statements, except as to what they "feel".

Here is some more information on Al Santoli.

Asia-Pacific Initiative Director Al Santoli returned to the Autonomous Muslim region of the Philippines accompanied by Ambassador Curtin Winsor, currently a board member of the Willam H. Donner Foundation, and Akram Elias, a Washington-based public diplomacy expert. The purpose of the visit was to further integrate health, education and economic development as part of the Development for Peace in Sulu (DPIS) project. The API provided a substantial amount of requested health and school supplies to address the needs of the regional hospital and public and moderate Muslim schools. The API also provided de-worming medicine to treat 25,000 children. The API, in partnership with the President of the Philippines Office for Youth Affairs is creating a high-tech learning program, and will be providing scholarships for 100 third and fourth year college students. To further livelihood opportunity, API is coordinating with the Speaker of the House, Joe De Venicia and the National Integrated Fisheries Technology Development Center to create both fresh-water and salt-water fish-farms and related industries.

Excerpted from.
www.afpc.org...





[edit on 23-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Run Loud, Run Shallow

Originally posted by Muaddib
First of all, he didn't say anything about these submarines docking on the L.A. port, but that COSCO, the company that owns Pier J in LA, is the one that is acquiring these subs according to Al Santoli.

As indicated above, I am clearly having trouble making sense of all this, hence my confusion regarding the nature of the submarine threat.

Let's not forget what I'm responding to. Here's another part of the source article, which I partially quoted above:

Source article: China's "COSCO" Building Tsunami Class Submarines for Pier J, Long Beach, CA

Cosco plans to operate modern "Tusunami Class" submarines, which can enter L.A. Harbor at Pier J and threaten the National Security of the U.S. The Petition demands that the 109th Congress pass Legislation to restore Pier J to U.S. control at once. Allowing the Red Chinese Army to operate at Pier J has breached the security of the USA.

Emphasis mine. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what this person means by entering the harbor at Pier J.

As far as I know, the only business any submarine has at a pier is tying up to it. Aside from that, submarine commanders generally try to stay away from piers due to their status as navigational hazards.

I am not able to understand how this makes sense from the standpoint of modern submarine warfare. Admittedly, things may have changed since my Navy days (back when submarines were made of stone and powered by coal), but submarines are at their most vulnerable in shallow water.

Back in the day, you might send a pig boat or a mini-sub into a harbor to sink moored ships, and maybe that's what these guys are worried about, but modern submarines are at their best in the open ocean, modern weapons systems tend to be optimized for longer-range engagements and again, the whole point of submarines is to stay hidden.

That's what I'm commenting on. As for all the rest, I really don't have the time or inclination to track all that stuff down.

But I'm glad you do.

Bubblehead Majic

By the way:

Originally posted by Majic
Dude, I used to ride around in one of these things. Believe me when I tell you that you don't want to park your submarine in your enemy's garage.

That's irrelevant to the discussion, and I'm sorry I brought it up.

What I used to do for a living has nothing to do with what China may or may not be doing in L.A. Harbor, and that was a silly non sequitur to throw into the thread.

Also, while I think the whole "submarines threatening us from L.A. Harbor" angle is silly, I do NOT in any way, shape or form want to suggest that investigating what COSCO is up to in L.A. Harbor and elsewhere is wrong.

It's a legitimate line of inquiry, subs or no subs, and I wholeheartedly encourage you to pursue it to your heart's content.

My skepticism (okay, more like cynicism, I suppose) about the submarine angle should not discourage anyone from honest investigation, so unless I see it just getting flat-out crazy, I'll hold my tongue and try not to make too much noise from the peanut gallery.

Give my regards to the rabbit at the bottom of the hole.

Oh, and way to go getting hold of Jon Moseley.

You're a great ATSer, my friend. Keep at it.









(But you don't have to post so much of that external material, and use the [ex] tags, you. Nag, nag. )



[edit on 3/23/2006 by Majic]

Originally posted by Majic
Run Loud, Run Shallow

As indicated above, I am clearly having trouble making sense of all this, hence my confusion regarding the nature of the submarine threat.

Emphasis mine. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what this person means by entering the harbor at Pier J.

Majic, you are really confused because i don't think you followed the whole discussion. That statement which you quoted was a petition sent by American citizens, that they thought COSCO could put the submarines in the port.

Is there a possibility for this? yes, but it is not the only possibility.

I really don't like to repeat things. Please if you are interested in this topic, do read, from the beginning to the end, the threads dealing with this subject.

Originally posted by Majic

I am not able to understand how this makes sense from the standpoint of modern submarine warfare. Admittedly, things may have changed since my Navy days (back when submarines were made of stone and powered by coal), but submarines are at their most vulnerable in shallow water..
................
That's what I'm commenting on. As for all the rest, I really don't have the time or inclination to track all that stuff down.

Well, the thing is as Jon said, the subs don't have to be right inside the port, things could be smuggled close enough by the sub, the sub could meet another boat owned by COSCO, and this boat could get, whatever is being smuggled faster into the Pier.

Second, since COSCO is identifying, or trying to, the subs as to be used only for civilian purposes, they might not even have to hide them at all.

Originally posted by Majic
Also, while I think the whole "submarines threatening us from L.A. Harbor" angle is silly, I do NOT in any way, shape or form want to suggest that investigating what COSCO is up to in L.A. Harbor and elsewhere is wrong.

How exactly is it silly when the company that is making the plans to use those two submarines is owned by the CCP, you know the same CCP that for decades has been talking about a war with the United States, and that the U.S. is it's main enemy, even now....the same CCP that still has Chinese officials saying that a war with the United States is inevitable, that they will easily bomb U.S. cities on the west coast, etc, etc, etc...

So again, how is this silly?

BTW....have you heard that now another CCP owned company is going to do the checking of all containers that go through their company, in Bahamas and is bound for the United States?


[edit on 24-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Nice try xmotex....

Let's find out what we do know shall we?

Nice try at what?

All you've shown is there is someone claiming that China is building 18,000 ton subs. Which we already knew at the beginning of the thread. We still don't have any information to corroborate this, other than Mr Al Santoli's original claim.

And yes, I looked at the American Foreign Policy Council site, in addition to the book "Stealth Invasion" and something called the U. S. Intelligence Council.

I'm still not convinced there is any merit to the "18,000 ton submarine" story. It seems extremely unlikely to me that the construction of two 18,000 submarines (which would be the second or third largest subs ever constructed) would go unreported from any other source, especially such massive civilian subs. Submarines are an awful expensive way to carry cargo... The claim they were copied from "European designs" makes even less sense, as the Europeans have never built anything of the sort.

Rigged For Silent Running

Muaddib, no worries. I agree that my lack of understanding of the possibilities does not necessarily exclude them.

My confusion was my "big contribution", and shouldn't be allowed to drive the thread off track.

Keep digging. I'll try to educate myself as the thread develops.

I have been away for a while, so I'll anwser this:

I have not been very up to date with my countries latest buisness transactions but based on the information availiable I my self is puzzeled over why we would put a nuclear submarine, fully loaded with MIRV capable nuclear missiles in a port under your nose, its beyong comprehensibility.

And I see there is a new member harking the China threat theory I indeed have not been around a while. About time I make myself more active.

Originally posted by Malichai
www.congress.org...

To:
Sen. Wayne Allard

March 18, 2006

Senator Allard,

We have been asked to sign a "Breach of Security Petition", sent to us by Jonathan Moseley, Exec. Director of the "U.S. Seaport Commission, PO Box 921, Frederick , MD 21705. The Petition states that the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) and the Red Chinese have a base of operations at Pier J in Long Beach, CA. Cosco plans to operate modern "Tusunami Class" submarines, which can enter L.A. Harbor at Pier J and threaten the National Security of the U.S. The Petition demands that the 109th Congress pass Legislation to restore Pier J to U.S. control at once. Allowing the Red Chinese Army to operate at Pier J has breached the security of the USA.

We are VERY concerned about this. Why would China (COSCO) need submarines in their cargo fleet!!! Do they want to park them at pier J on America's own west coast!


Boulder , CO

I had mixed feelings about the UAE ports deal, but no question we should not be hosting nuclear capable Chinese subs. What do they need to do over here anyway? Are they protecting Mexico or something?

There is no Tsunami-class submarine in anyone's navy as far as I know. The Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy has ballistic missile subs (Xia and Jin-class), but they rarely venture out of port inside China.

I would think that the US Navy would welcome the chance to examine a Chinese boomer closely - as they would if it made port in Los Angeles. We would be able to get very, very good sonar signatures on their propulsion plant, at the very least - it would be an intelligence coup to beat them all. Never mind the opportunities we would have to get hull shots of the ship, conduct radiation assays on their sub's nuclear power plant, fully characterize their pump sounds... I'd think the US Navy would would be saying "Come on, BABY!" if the People's Liberation Army Navy - or any major foreign navy, for that case - wanted to dock ANY of their front-line submarines in an American port.

These days, submarine-launched ballistic missiles reach out so far that the disadvantages of enabling intensive intelligence study of a new sub far outweigh any possible advantage to launching a nuclear attack on the US from within a US port. If nothing else, we'd be able to detect preparations for launch reasonably well during an international crisis and bomb the sub, detonate a limpet mine or a captor mine under it... the possibilities are endless.

reply to post by Murky


I can see why COSCO might want to pioneer the field of cargo submarines - while subs are initially more expensive, they're also:
- much faster for the same engine revs;
- safer, by and large, because they operate out of the weather;
- for all intents and purposes invulnerable to pirates, which are becoming tiresome again after a long period in which pirates were suppressed by the bristling might of the two global military/naval alliances.

If really large cargo submarines could be made and used, it would be a breakthrough in shipping. The capacity of the sea lanes would multiply as navigation became not a matter of ocean surface, but ocean volume.

Looking really forward, offshore oil and gas production platforms (as opposed to drilling platforms) could be moved underwater, where - again - weather would cease to be an issue and security would be drastically simplified because piracy would be limited to people, groups and entities with submarines or submersibles and much experience in operating on the ocean floor.

(In the future, we might be looking at the Russian mafiya in this role - it's on the outside plausible that they could either get control of a ship like the Akademik Keldysh which could be adapted into a subsea pirate ship, or influence the Russian government to begin engaging in piratical activity directly.

Of course, distinguishing between recent Russian foreign policy and piracy is becoming harder as time goes on; there were periods in history when this was also true. The Great Game in Central Asia was essentially an expression of the Russian piratical impulse; so was their invasion of Afghanistan in the 1970s and 1980s and of Georgia last year. But I digress.)

COSCO happens to have the capital and the centralized control to engage in great experiments like this one. They may see an opportunity to leverage relatively cheap nuclear power running large submerged cargo ships traversing the Pacific and Indian Oceans, where the vagaries of weather, rogue waves and piracy would all be minimized sharply.