This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
The main reason I changed from Conventional/Nuclear to Unknown is that unless I am missing something, there has been no USDoD announcement. "Unnamed sources" are acceptable to use to say that it potentially is. But I feel it's taking too much to explicitly state it that way. Especially when one of the sources doubting it also lists another situation recently where "Unnamed sources" took a Chinese metaphor literally and assumed there was water instead of rocket fuel etc.
When the wiki article is claiming that it's a mix of nuclear and conventional, which could easily be a translation error or mistake, mistaking nuclear for AIP which would be far more likely, as Nuclear and conventional seems unusual. We need more than "unnamed sources" and "Pentagon Officials".
.jpg)
