• China missiles filled with water, not fuel: US intelligence
  • Xi seeking to root out corruption, prepare military for combat

US intelligence indicates that President Xi Jinping’s sweeping military purge came after it emerged that widespread corruption undermined his efforts to modernize the armed forces and raised questions about China’s ability to fight a war, according to people familiar with the assessments.

The corruption inside China’s Rocket Force and throughout the nation’s defense industrial base is so extensive that US officials now believe Xi is less likely to contemplate major military action in the coming years than would otherwise have been the case, according to the people, who asked not to be named discussing intelligence.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1511 months ago

    I hate to be that guy, but source?

    All the info I could find is derived from the Bloomburg article, which clearly says “water instead of fuel”, and also silo doors that don’t fully open lmao

    • @Rakonat
      link
      English
      17
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      The accusations as I understand it is the fuel never got to the missile, it was sold black market elsewhere and someone filled the missile with water instead because you can’t really check it given how it reacts with moisture in the air.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      511 months ago

      No source it’s just pretty much physically impossible. Even if there’s no safety system setting off alarms N2O4/UDMH is denser than water, you can’t fit enough water in the rocket to make it weigh like it’s full of fuel, it’s going to read like 20% is missing either way. And if nobody cares about that why are you putting anything in it at all?

      Water contamination and the 100 ton armored door not working are both super likely results of generals embezzling money, water instead of fuel is dumb and Bloomberg has a track record of fucking up this kind of thing

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        011 months ago

        So your proof is just that you think your scenario is more plausible than what Bloomburg reported?