Here I show you the original observation by Tom Shugart, the same guy who now says the nuclear sub sank. In his X post in July , the estimated size of the new sub with the x shape stern is about 10% longer than the diesel propelled 039A sub. This is much smaller than a regular nuclear sub. I didn’t read the new Wall Street journal article which I don’t have access. Based on few online articles, the sub sinking incident conclusion was made based on two observations: 1. The sub left but did not return. 2 there are now increased crane activities at the ship yard. Unless I missed something, which is likely as I haven’t read the WSJ article, i don’t see how these lead to the conclusion that the sub sank.