China Hiding Nuclear Arsenal in Tunnel Maze

Zimmerman

Active member
Washington: China is hiding its ballistic

missiles and nuclear warheads in a vast network of tunnels, said a media

report citing a study carried out by a professor and his students.

The

research was carried out over three years by Georgetown University

students who translated hundreds of documents, went through satellite

imagery, got Chinese military documents and trawled through hundreds of

gigabytes of online data, reported the Washington Post.

They were led by Phillip A. Karber, a professor.

Their

effort has led to a large body of public knowledge about thousands of

miles of tunnels that were dug by Chinese military's Second Artillery

Corps, which protects and deploys ballistic missiles and nuclear

warheads.

The 363-page study

concludes that China's nuclear arsenal could be many times larger than

the estimates of arms-control experts, the media report said.

"It's

not quite a bombshell, but those thoughts and estimates are being

checked against what people think they know based on classified

information," a US Defense Department strategist was quoted as saying.

There

has been criticism over the study in which students carried out

internet-based research and drew from sources like Google Earth, blogs,

and military journals.

They also referred to a fictionalized TV docudrama about Chinese artillery soldiers.

Nick Yarosh, 22, a student who worked on the project, said: "I don't even want to know how many hours I spent on it."

"But

you ask people what they did in college, most just say I took this

class, I was in this club. I can say I spent it reading Chinese nuclear

strategy and Second Artillery manuals. For a nerd like me, that really

means something."

The study came about after Karber volunteered in 2008 on a Pentagon agency charged with countering weapons of mass destruction.

Karber's

committee noticed that following an earthquake in China's Sichuan

province, Chinese news accounts reported that thousands of radiation

technicians were rushing to the region.

It was followed by

pictures of strangely collapsed hills and speculation that the caved-in

tunnels in the area had held nuclear weapons, the Washington Post said.

Karber

and his students were left stunned when in December 2009, the Chinese

military admitted for the first time that the Second Artillery had

indeed been building a network of tunnels. It confirmed the direction of

their research.

At the end of the study, Karber observed that

based on the number of tunnels the Second Artillery is digging and its

increasing deployment of missiles, China's nuclear warheads could number

as many as 3,000.

/gnartron

Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/china-hiding-nuclear-arsenal-in-tunnel-maze-say-researchers-154439&cp

 
haha what kind of dumbass government would just leave their wmd in tunnels susceptible to earthquakes in a region where earthquakes arent a large surprise

 
The US does the exact same thing. With the invent of satellites, land based missiles became obsolete because they were easily targeted, hence the use of submarines. However, the way around the satellite problem was to dig tunnels to transport ICBMs from the place of production to the missile silos. Many of the missile silos in America were never actually occupied by ICBM's, rather they were built as decoys. That way enemies (ie USSR) couldn't tell how which silos had ICBM's and which didn't, and therefore had to spend tons of money building enough missiles of their own to destroy our decoys. We have thousands of miles of tunnels large enough to transport ICBM's right underneath our feat. Spooky stuff.
 
skeptical-cat-is-fraught-with-skepticism.jpg
 
this is china we're talking about, the same country that has bult more nuclear reactors after the japan earthquake than any other country.
 
there is a silo out in the middle of a wheat farmers field near to where i went to college.

Its all good though, The big 3 arent gonna use the nukes on each other or their allies because then the world will end in a matter of days, and nobody wins. MAD for the win!
 
china isn't the exception. a lot of countries with a big arsenal understate their nuclear capabilities. seems like this article is just fuel for the red china hysteria that's building in america.
 
Even if this is not a credible source I am sure China has and is developing nuclear weapons... It's not like the US dosen't have it's own.
 
China is known to have nuclear weapons this is just saying they have more than originally expected. Also I do not even see why having this many nukes even matters. MAD would come into play and the entire world would be destroyed before the US, Russia or China even has a chance to shoot off 1/100th of their nukes.
 
Wow man really intelligent post. No but really have you been living in a pineapple under the sea? Fucking retarded.
 
I think a nation run solely on nuclear power would be irresponsible on its government and until safer an better ways of handling nuclear energy are developed it shouldn't be done. A mixture of nuclear, wind, solar, and oil while still tryin to find a new means of energy is the way to go imo.
 
I didn't mean entirely, but mostly, proportionally, nuclear is the cleanest source of power. There is no air pollution whatsoever and nuclear waste can be buried. I know it's not perfect, but it is generally the cleanest. Also, about danger, do you actually realize how unlikely accidents are? especially in America.
 
I realize how unlikely accidents are but relative. There are no small accidents with nuclear energy. Not to mention all the bad side effects of burying nuclear waste.
 
I agree with you with that nuclear energy is the best, but the disaster in Japan destroyed any hope of the world turning to nuclear as a primary energy source.
 
every single accident that has occured was small, with the exception of chernobyl...but that was crazy commies being crazy commies.

all the accidents get blown waaaaaaaaay out of proportion.

the real issue with nuclear energy is what to do with the spent fuel. that is the the 1 real issue.
 
I tend to agree that nuclear energy is still to dangerous and kind of scary but when you put it into perspective it is really our best option. The death rate from nuclear power vs. coal or oil is way way smaller. For every 1 person who dies from a nuclear power related incident 4,000 die from coal. Basically, overall nuclear energy is safer but when it goes wrong it goes REALLY WRONG, and coal has a more constant high level of danger.

That being said the affects of a nuclear disaster are longer lasting and deaths are harder to track. For example, people are still suffering from "chernobyl heart", a heart defect that is believed to be caused by exposure to radiation and is seen in the children of those exposed.
http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclear-power-vs-coal/
 
you realize that chernobyl was caused by the soviets experimenting with different types of fuel that they knew had a good chance of causing a meltdown, right?

there has never been a serious accident involving nuclear energy, outside of chernobyl. the japanese "meltdown" was never a meltdown and was never going to be one. they had it completely contained the whole time. hell, that plant continued to supply nuclear power while the "meltdown" was supposedly happening.

3-mile island - the presidente visited the plant like a week after the "near catastophy" just to prove how safe it was.

if a massive earthquake, and giant tsunami cant cause a serious problem with a nuclear power plant, i would personally deem it pretty darn safe.

 
they handed out vodka shots to literally everyone; men, women, children to help protect them from the radiation in the hours following the release...

seriously, there answer to every problem is to drink vodka.
 
Thats exactly part of my point. Nuclear energy overall is safer than some other forms but what scares people away is that if it does go wrong it can have longer affects.... i did not know that the japanese "meltdown" had been contained the entire time tho.
 
yeah I did realize that and I agree with you. I just didn't get why you said it is still to dangerous when you later basically argued that is is not to dangerous, and actually one of our safest options.

Modern nuclear reactors can literally have complete core meltdowns and be contained within the vessel and if that were to fail they have giant concrete buildings surrounding them (assuming they don't explode from hydrogen haha). Anyways nuclear power is very safe, and is the future or clean energy.

 
People need to give up hope of using wind, solar etc. They are nowhere near viable primary sources of energy for the future and never will be. They are inefficient and way too expensive. If nuclear didn't have such a stigma, I honestly believe it would be our main energy source.
 
Back
Top