Slashdot Mirror


Russia Confirms Failed Missile Launch Caused Norway's Light Show

Ch_Omega writes "According to this article over at BarentsObserver, the giant spiral seen on the sky over Norway Wednesday morning local time has been confirmed to be the result of a failed Russian missile launch. Russia now confirms that '...the missile was launched from submerged position in the White Sea by the nuclear submarine Dmitri Donskoy. Studies of the telemetric data from the launch show that the two first stages of the missile functioned as they should, and that a technical malfunctioning occurred during the third stage.' There is also an article on this at The Daily Mail."

236 comments

  1. Well paint me surprised: by Fluffeh · · Score: 5, Funny

    And all this time I seriously thought that it was some unimaginably interesting plot all about a russian missile program, underwater subs and secrecy beyond everyone's wildest imagination. Wait... what?

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    1. Re:Well paint me surprised: by DJCacophony · · Score: 5, Funny

      Underwater subs?
      My god, it's worse than I thought.

      --
      Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
    2. Re:Well paint me surprised: by digitalunity · · Score: 4, Funny

      More interestingly, why were they shooting this off next to Norway? Maybe they were hoping it was so cold outside all the Norwegians would be inside and wouldn't notice...

      What exactly was Russia shooting at?

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    3. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come to think of it, what exactly was it? Merely a routine missile launch (?!??!), a test rocket, or.........something else.

      I'm going to have to vote 'something else'. It all seems too convenient now.

    4. Re:Well paint me surprised: by plague911 · · Score: 1, Funny

      It may be a funny statement but as far as I know being able to launch a missile while the sub is submerged would be a huge leap forward in the nuclear arms race. Currently subs must surface in order to launch their missiles during this period they are highly exposed and subject to attack if they could do this while remaining submerged it would drastically reduce the amount of risk incurred.

    5. Re:Well paint me surprised: by sznupi · · Score: 1

      As the previous thread almost managed to show, perhaps at confusion stemming from "the second coming...of Odin"?

      Russia probably doesn't like pope very much, after all...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    6. Re:Well paint me surprised: by martas · · Score: 4, Funny

      santa. they know if christmas dies, the american economy will succumb to the same fate very quickly.

    7. Re:Well paint me surprised: by vivian · · Score: 5, Informative

      as far as I know being able to launch a missile while the sub is submerged would be a huge leap forward in the nuclear arms race.

      This video seems to show underwater missile launches have been done for quite a while now...

    8. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Capmaster · · Score: 1

      Actually, American Ohio class SSBNs can fire Trident II missiles while submerged. If I recall correctly, the missile is pressurized with nitrogen, preventing damage to the innards from sea water.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_missile

    9. Re:Well paint me surprised: by zkp · · Score: 3, Funny

      They gave their software engineers vodka while they were working on the code for the missile. Apparently they significantly overshot the Ballmer peak.

    10. Re:Well paint me surprised: by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Informative

      Have you been living in a cave the past 50 years? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-27_Polaris

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    11. Re:Well paint me surprised: by timothyf · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nearly all of the unfrozen sea that Russia has easy access to in the north is also relatively close to Norway (purple is the extent of sea ice):

      http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png

    12. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank got they havn't sorted out overwater subs yet.

    13. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Failed+Physicist · · Score: 1

      Yep, but I don't think the russians had any.
      Or else, they somehow feel the need to remind the U.S. that they still got them?

    14. Re:Well paint me surprised: by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 1

      Or a reminder to Norway. I can't imagine why, though. :)

    15. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is an underwater aircraft carrier launching a jet, the F-15. This is still classified, so when youtube asks if you have security clearance "TOP SECRET" you must click yes to se. If you click no, you will be returnd to front page.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clIUY0U0xAU

    16. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      That would be the Jesus Sub.

    17. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Russia was shooting at Kura polygon on Kamchatka. Of course, one would want to shoot from north-west: the rocket flies the longest distance possible, nearly exclusively over Russian territory (this time it seems to be launched from neutral waters), and mainly over polar seas and eternally frozen lands. Given that the Bulava rocket was never built correctly (not for sea launches, at least), not flying it above heavily populated areas seems like a good idea...

    18. Re:Well paint me surprised: by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Russia doesn't need to do anything to bring down the American economy. America did a fairly decent job of that itself not too long ago.

    19. Re:Well paint me surprised: by tbischel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What I want to know is can we hire them for the 4th of july?

    20. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it is their new SLBM so test launching one from a submarine isn't surprising.

      We know that they have them, and they know that we know that they have them, and we know that they know that we know that they have them, and they know that we know that they know that we know that they have them. So there's really no need for them to remind the U.S. that they have them.

    21. Re:Well paint me surprised: by benjamindees · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They hate us for our big-box retailers.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    22. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Subs haven't had to surface to launch ballistic missiles for years and years, since the sixties.

      When the Polaris missile was developed in the late 50's, it was chosen specifically for its ability to be launched from a submerged delivery platform with the first one being launched from the USS George Washington (SSBN-598) in July 1960.

      What makes a sub vulnerable during launch is a couple of things. They have to come shallow to a launch depth of around 50 meters, they need to come to a full stop and basically hover in the water to create a stable launch platform, and once they launch a missile everyone knows exactly where they are, and exactly where they are going to be, at least for the next few seconds to minutes.

    23. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Cochonou · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Typhoon class submarines (the Dmitri Donskoi belongs to this class) are not supposed to fire missiles from underwater. They are supposed to break the ice pack to launch their payload. So, this is either a very interesting evolution, or bad reporting.

    24. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're modded funny and maybe you're trying to be even though I think you're just clueless. Subs have been able to launch missiles while submerged for decades already. Or maybe you're confusing the need to surface with what some Russian subs really can do and which does require surfacing. That is, to penetrate a 30+ ft thick layer of ice in a matter of seconds and then launch missiles (I can only imagine how rough the ride must be when the sub hits the ice). I don't know if there are western subs with the same capability but I'd guess there are since it's such a strategic advantage. I think it's pretty obvious that subs underneath a thick layer of ice are probably the hardest to locate of all nuke launching units unless there are some about which there's absolutely no publicly available information. The Russians made their sub capabilities relatively well known to reinforce the deterrent effect of their nukes and, arguably, their subs were the only weapon that was better than our equivalent.

    25. Re:Well paint me surprised: by shentino · · Score: 1

      Awww...and I was hoping it was a rickroll.

    26. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Loupitour · · Score: 2, Interesting

      as far as I know being able to launch a missile while the sub is submerged would be a huge leap forward in the nuclear arms race.

      This video seems to show underwater missile launches have been done for quite a while now...

      In France, all ICBMs are actually SLBM (Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile) since all the land-based missile launchers have been dismantled in the late 90s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_Force_(France) I don't remember a test ending in a huge spinning spiral though. If this is a secret program, I guess they're doing it wrong...

    27. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, duh. Fifty years ago the government told everybody to dig a cave in their backyard to get away from that stuff.

    28. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Animats · · Score: 2, Informative

      as far as I know being able to launch a missile while the sub is submerged would be a huge leap forward in the nuclear arms race.

      It was, when the US and USSR both achieved it in 1960.

    29. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      No, he's just an American

    30. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      What exactly was Russia shooting at?

      The Laureate's position.

    31. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Sitrix · · Score: 1

      No Russians had underwater launch capable missiles for a long time. The one that's currently being used is USSR era R-29RM Sineva SS-N-23 missile and will be replaced by Bulava missile. Bulava missile was strongly pushed up in research only due to active expansion of NATO bases and missile shield construction plans in Eastern Europe. Either way, as soon as missile shield plans were announced, Russia started dropping billions into anti missile shield projects such as Bulava and Topol-M to maintain nuclear deterrent.

    32. Re:Well paint me surprised: by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Come to think of it, what exactly was it?

      Maybe it's a new business model: Lob a dodgy rocket into the sky, then send Norway an invoice for the fireworks display. Sounds workable to me. ;-)

    33. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Funny

      What exactly was Russia shooting at?

      Well, duh. UFOs, obviously. The significant question is: what sort of exotic defence did they use to cause that response? Warp shields? Singularity field?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    34. Re:Well paint me surprised: by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Obligatory cheesy 1966 Batman:The Movie reference.

      29 seconds.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    35. Re:Well paint me surprised: by MortenMW · · Score: 1

      To show their power, just like they have started flying strategic bombers past the Norwegian coast line towards the UK.

    36. Re:Well paint me surprised: by No+Grand+Plan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Where've you been? They've been doing that since the Cold War.

    37. Re:Well paint me surprised: by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 2, Funny

      To show their power, just like they have started flying strategic bombers past the Norwegian coast line towards the UK.

      Exactly. In Belgian news it was described as a missile which could travel 8000km and drop 9 atomic bombs.

      It's "inducing fear", distracting the public from something else (why show off their new "worlddestroying" missiles? And if they've tested 8 times before, like I read somewhere, why was it only now as visible? My family has a strong military history and I've always been told "the [military] official story is always PR, not truth.")

      It's poking the USA with a wink to the cold war; the US is weakened after been cannonfood in the middle east, ginormic debts and an economy belly-up, Saudi arabia cannot loan futher "We has to sell dubay, and don't have monnies nemaor because of electric cars :'(".
      It's the perfect time to fire off awesome fireworks and telling people it might be able to destroy the world in a eyeblink.

      Up next: Asia demonstrates military superiority, the middle east continues to develop atom bombs, Europe develops a European united army, India knees USA in the balls, USA drafts robots for duty, whips AI-scientists to be more productive and drafts 12yo fat kids to operate drones while Japans mechs are revealed, taking over control of the teen demography through hentai.`^_^

      I better start programming at a post-apocalyptic world. 2012 isn't global warming. (had been debumked, needed new fear; kthx Russia, bring more brides.)

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    38. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Well, according to this "expert" it's torsion weapons of mass destruction

      Robert Hoagland's science

    39. Re:Well paint me surprised: by jjackalb · · Score: 1

      Typhoon class submarines (the Dmitri Donskoi belongs to this class) are not supposed to fire missiles from underwater. They are supposed to break the ice pack to launch their payload. So, this is either a very interesting evolution, or bad reporting.

      Not true. They can surface (if they need to break the ice), but don't have to.

    40. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Typhoon class is able to fire ICBMs while fully submerged from any of its 20 silos. The system creates a huge gas-bubble over the launch-tube in which a propelling charge drives the rocket to the surface, then it ignites its rocket engine and continues as any ICBM.
      Recent development would be the RSM-56 Bulava, a Topol M-based marine ICBM, its test launches were performed from Typhoon class submarines while fully submerged. Videos of a Typhoon class launching a missile while submerged have been around for a while now, as well... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxf84ptXBWA 1:38 shows, as far as i remember, on of the akula / typhoon's silos.... the large amount of gas is visible.

    41. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Underwater launching of SLBMs has been standard operating procedure for quite some time. The Typhoon is unique because it can break through the ice pack, in addition for open water launching. The ability to break through the ice vastly expanded the potential operating area of the class. Instead of staying in the comparatively small area of the Barents Sea, they can roam most of the Arctic Ocean. This helps protect them from SSNs which would be hunting for them. You can also forget about using surface warships or aircraft to hunt them (leave any nonsense about using ice breakers at home, the would hear them from hundreds of miles away and be long gone).

    42. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imran Zakhaev must be proud.

    43. Re:Well paint me surprised: by 2names · · Score: 1

      The Jesus Sub is kosher beef sliced thin, placed on Mana, and served with a Light Italian dressing. And, yes, it is rightly priced at 30 pieces of silver.

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    44. Re:Well paint me surprised: by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          They're testing a new series of ICBM's. So, a routine test launch, but not in the best interest of the world at large.

          Then again, something like 11 of 15 test launches failed, so at this rate we don't have much to worry about from the new family of missiles. Well, if they make them work, they'll be extremely dangerous. They're suppose to carry their own countermeasures to avoid intercept by an anti-missile-missile, and allow for in-flight target changes. Right now, we know the target of an incoming ICBM based on where it was fired from, it's angle, and where it reaches it's apogee. They could make it look like it would land in Nebraska, and then turn it to hit DC. I'm sure there are limits there, but you get the idea. The countermeasures are dangerous for us. The redirection is not so bad. If we are pretty sure an ICBM has been launched towards the United States, a barrage of ICBM's will launch before the first volley hits the target. That's bad news for other countries though. Just because they're ICBM's, that doesn't necessarily mean they are targeted at the US.

          It's a very dangerous game to play though. If we detected an ICBM launch, we'd be at Defcon 1, and some anxious fingers would be on the big red button. I guess what could be worse would be if another sub came into American territorial waters and launched. The world would perceive that as a first strike from the US. Just saying "No, that wasn't us, I promise" won't cut it.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    45. Re:Well paint me surprised: by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Oh god. Is he still writing that crap. Well, at least he's not blaming NASA for this one. I'm sure he'll find a way though. At least he got HAARP in there. I guess he's losing his touch.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    46. Re:Well paint me surprised: by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          The cool spiral pictures were time lapsed shots. If you look around for the news story, you'll find some with the video, where you can see it's just a rocket pinwheeling. If you pay attention to the stills, you'll notice they're long exposure shots, and there's blurring at the ground because the camera wasn't absolutely still.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    47. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Knara · · Score: 1

      They did, indeed, have the ability to do underwater launches.

      This armchair cool military technology nerd (i.e. "me") saw an interesting documentary about submarines during the cold war a month or two back.

      Putin (and his proxies/surrogates) feel the need to make the other major powers feel that Russia is not irrelevant in the post-war world, so they do stuff like this all the time.

    48. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dubai is not in Saudi Arabia, although there is most likely a lot of private Saudi funds invested there. Abu Dhabi, the capital emirate of the United Arab Emirates (of which Dubai is another) is the one who is helping Dubai pay its debts.

    49. Re:Well paint me surprised: by ThatTallGuy · · Score: 1

      Beautiful pic, there, Tim

    50. Re:Well paint me surprised: by MortenMW · · Score: 1

      I've been paying attention. They stopped doing it after the Soviet Union fell, it was too expensive and meaningless. They started flying again last year (or maybe 2007). Vladimir Putin (then russian president) said that they were rebuilding their military and that strategic bombers is an important part of it.

    51. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My bad. I guess 'restarted' would have been more accurate, then.

    52. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're trying to point an American with his geography fucked up? You're doing it wrong! Next time you see a mistake about geography coming from an obvious American you should just carry on, it's what all people is doing, it's not news or fun anymore, Americans are geography impaired. I wonder how they find the places to deliver their democracy, cluster-bomb carried for the lulz.

      I know and you know at least one fag is going to sing the American anthem when moding this troll.

    53. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a map, its approximately the same in miles. *starts humming the anthome and shoots something*

    54. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why yes, as a matter of fact. Is that a problem?

    55. Re:Well paint me surprised: by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      France also has ASMP (Air-Sol Moyenne Portée) nuclear air-to-ground missiles which they can load into their Mirage 2000N, and Rafale fighters. But yeah, the submarines are more survivable. The fighter platforms are mostly useful to initiate a first strike.

    56. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, you should go into stripes and spots -- I mean writing movie plots.

    57. Re:Well paint me surprised: by camperslo · · Score: 1

      It's to celebrate Mission Impossible Season 07 being on DVD (or the torrent sites???)

    58. Re:Well paint me surprised: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope your kidding.... Hell I was launching missiles from a submerged sub in 1972.

  2. Back in the day... by GrahamCox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There was once a time that Russia would have just kept schtum. How many UFO reports are due to similar failed firings prior to the end of the Cold War?

    1. Re:Back in the day... by Neon+Aardvark · · Score: 1

      There was once a time that Russia would have just kept schtum. How many UFO reports are due to similar failed firings prior to the end of the Cold War?

      Hopefully none because people had worked out what this was as soon as it happened.

      Everyone without a tinfoil hat knew it was a failed rocket of some kind.

      --
      Azural - instrumentals
    2. Re:Back in the day... by bertoelcon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Everyone without a tinfoil hat knew it was a failed rocket of some kind.

      Thats because the tinfoil hats block that kind of mind control.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    3. Re:Back in the day... by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

      In Soviet Russia, UFO reports you!

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Back in the day... by don+depresor · · Score: 1

      Every tinfoil hat wearer knows that's because without your tinfoil hat, you're vulnerable to the mind control rays that make you think that way!!

    5. Re:Back in the day... by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hah! That's what THEY want you to think!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Back in the day... by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      None - because we didn't have slashdot back then

      --
      This is blinging
    7. Re:Back in the day... by ais523 · · Score: 1

      Who was it that pointed out that all you really needed to do to get your mind control working globally was to infiltrate a tinfoil factory?

      --
      (1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"
    8. Re:Back in the day... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Rats, my master plan is out! Minions, assemble, we have to strike now!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Back in the day... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      There was once a time that Russia would have just kept schtum.

      The time Russia would simply have remained quiet ended long before the Soviet Union did. IIRC it was in the 60's that everyone agreed to notify the world of their launches in advance in order to prevent a test or training (or spacebound) launch from being mistaken for the opening salvo of WWIII.
       

      How many UFO reports are due to similar failed firings prior to the end of the Cold War?

      Probably plenty, but just because John (or Ivan) Q. Public was unaware of the launch does not mean the appropriate authorities were. Indeed, that's the case here - the appropriate notifications were filed and the appropriate announcements made, but the general population were unaware of them.

  3. Testing missiles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So where was the missile supposed to go?
    Just a test run and then crash into the sea?

    1. Re:Testing missiles? by ChipMonk · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sometimes, that really is what happens. Put a buoy out there, with a camera to record the missile reaching its target, or not. The delivery system and the detonation system are not necessarily joined-at-the-hip.

    2. Re:Testing missiles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most likely into Okhotsk Sea near Kamchatka like in previous tests.

    3. Re:Testing missiles? by hwyhobo · · Score: 5, Funny

      It was supposed to detonate over the polar cap and melt it to shut up the global warming deniers.

      --
      End anonymous moderation and posting on /.
    4. Re:Testing missiles? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Informative

      So where was the missile supposed to go?
      Just a test run and then crash into the sea?

      Yes. At this point, they would be quite happy if it would at least do that properly. So far, there were 13 (known) tests, and 6 of them failed. Most importantly, the 2 tests preceding this one were failures. This for a weapon that was supposed to be in service 3 years ago originally, and at the beginning of this year was claimed to be fully operational by the end of it.

      Since this is supposed to be the next-gen uber missile to replace the venerable Topol-M, is supposed to be able to penetrate "any defense" (it's MIRV with EM shielding, and ability to maneuver and fire decoys in flight if it's shot at), and since it's the first weapon of that kind developed entirely in modern post-Soviet Russia (not a design developed in USSR, and not a project inherited from USSR), its success was supposed to prove that Russia is "up off its knees", and ready to take on the big boys if needed, as in the good old times... And since it's been such an abject failure so far, needless to say that it serves as a good target for related jokes these days.

    5. Re:Testing missiles? by buttle2000 · · Score: 0

      Correction. It's now called 'Climate change'.

    6. Re:Testing missiles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The delivery system and the detonation system are not necessarily joined-at-the-hip.

      That's what she said!

    7. Re:Testing missiles? by osee · · Score: 1

      Topol M is a land based missile. Bulava is submarine based. It never was intended to replace Topol but instead it's supposed to be based on it.

    8. Re:Testing missiles? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Most likely into Okhotsk..."

      Isn't that where they make kid's bib overalls?

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    9. Re:Testing missiles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      54% success rate is not too shabby. Remember that just two 10 kton nuclear bombs have been enough to end a war in the past.

      If there was a nuclear war happening tomorrow you can bet that anything with a success rate above 5-10% would be considered operational, since you're not going to get a chance to use it later anyway.

    10. Re:Testing missiles? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      54% success rate is not too shabby.

      It is, since we're talking about launch success rates, not hit success...

  4. Placement by Reason58 · · Score: 1

    This seems odd to me that Russia has so much open coastline to test something like this, yet they choose to do it at the very edge by another country. Is there a logistical reason for this?

    1. Re:Placement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because White Sea is free of ice year round. For that reason most major submarine bases and shipyards are located on its coast. Most of Russia's coastline is devoid of infrastructure needed to support naval operations or whatever they still have left.

    2. Re:Placement by sznupi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It was happening at quite high altitude, visible from vast distance, so it wasn't really at the doorstep of Norway, probably.

      Plus Russia doesn't have exactly that much of a coastline as the first glance at many typical maps would suggest - the northern regions are quite close to the north pole, so they end up heavily "distorted" in certain map projections.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    3. Re:Placement by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Worse, Russia doesn't really have a lot of ice-free coastline, especially during the winter. And the few they do have can easily be blocked from the open sea by NATO countries.

      It was one of the big issues during the cold wars, afaik even one of the core reasons for the Vietnam war.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Placement by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      even one of the core reasons for the Vietnam war.

      Okay now I am curious, I thought Vietnam was mainly a China vs US gig? How would chinese control of Vietnam help the USSR access north polar waters?

    5. Re:Placement by dakameleon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I thought Vietnam was mainly a China vs US gig?

      Can't help with the reason for why it's relevant to USSR's coastal access, but in 196x China wasn't exactly in a position to sponsor a proxy war, having just taken a bit of a misguided jump. The proxy war was still between the USA and USSR.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    6. Re:Placement by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Interesting

      North Vietnam was backed primarily by the Soviets, not the Chinese. In fact, shortly after the end of the Vietnam War, China and Vietnam got into a shooting match over the Vietnamese presence in Cambodia.

      The Soviets needed more warm-water ports, and Vietnam was willing to provide this. This also put a significant portion of the world's shipping lanes within striking distance of Soviet forces. The domino theory may have been an overblown fear, but a significant base of operations in that part of the world is all that the USSR needed to make a serious nuisance in case things heated up.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    7. Re:Placement by styrotech · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're not thinking of Korea maybe? North Korea and China were close buddies. North Vietnam was better friends with the Soviets, and never really got on well with China.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

      The tensions between Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge that led to Vietnam invading Cambodia was a chance for the Soviets and the Chinese to have a little war of their own.

    8. Re:Placement by compro01 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Russia's coastline isn't that open when you look at it.

      1. North - Covered with ice during most of the year, including now, so testing here is not an option.
      2. East - Would take forever to get there from the sub bases on the west coast (You'd either have to go north and stay under the ice for weeks, or go south down the Atlantic, around Africa, and through the Indian ocean), so also not an option.
      3. West - This is the coast of the Baltic sea (And it shares coasts with Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and maybe Norway (I forget where the Baltic ends and the Atlantic beings)), from which you can get to the Atlantic, which puts you right at the south-western coast of Norway, and just a bit northeast of the UK.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    9. Re:Placement by dbIII · · Score: 1

      North Korea and China were close buddies

      Were being the operative word. North Korea at the moment shows that China will trade with absolutely anyone, but the military on the border and the acceptance of refugees shows that they think North Korea is as much of a basket case as the rest of the world does (actually more so because they have a lot of escaped people that can provide proof).

    10. Re:Placement by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      North - Covered with ice during most of the year, including now, so testing here is not an option.

      You say that as though it should be surprising. You do realise it's winter in the northern hemisphere, I hope? Kind of like saying "It's barbecue weather in Australia!" When is it ever not?!

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    11. Re:Placement by dargaud · · Score: 1

      The Soviets needed more warm-water ports, and Vietnam was willing to provide this.

      So, whatever became of it ? Did they build it and only have a few minor vessels in it ? Did they fall from grace after the vietcong victory ? Did all the traffic lanes cease shipping in fear ?

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    12. Re:Placement by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Kind of like saying "It's barbecue weather in Australia!" When is it ever not?!

      August, if you're in Tasmania.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    13. Re:Placement by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I do realize it is winter. it's currently about -25 C where I am (Central Canada), however, obvious things are not always obvious to everyone.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    14. Re:Placement by rikkards · · Score: 1

      Let alone the fact that the vietnamese didn't exactly like the chinese (you know with the constant threat of invasion). The russians they liked a lot more.

    15. Re:Placement by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      But the Chinese will not let the N Koreans become citizens. The escapees are sort of a slave class of people. Especially the woman who escape.

    16. Re:Placement by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      The Soviets did get access to the the ports in Vietnam. In response, the US beefed up its presence in Japan, the Philippines, and Thailand, and made a point of sending naval vessels along the routes to exercise the right of passage through international waters. The forces regularly observed each other. It didn't come to blows, of course (or at least no significant blows), but it wouldn't have taken long for Soviet cruise and anti-ship missiles to shut down virtually all shipping in the area. The US forces were there to provide a balance against that.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    17. Re:Placement by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Oh really? Where did you get that one from?
      I've never been to that part of China (effectively an ethnic Korean quasi-autonomous state like the "homelands" in South Africa years ago) but I know a few people from there that went back for a visit last year. Many people there have relatives in North Korea which they have not seen in decades.
      It's sad, North Korea used to export seafood to China but all it seems to export now is starving people.

  5. Forth Post! by Adam7288 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Forth Post!

    1. Re:Forth Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      : X DUP 1+ . . ;

  6. No Fool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    At first Russia denied it, and then I knew it was true. But now that they've confirmed it, maybe there's more going on here than meets the eye...

    1. Re:No Fool by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      Hot on the heels of the suspicious satellite crash. The Baklava, er, Bulava missile is designed to "penetrate missile-defense systems". They're probably ramping up the program in response to the Americans' plans to put missile defense batteries in Central Europe.

    2. Re:No Fool by crymeph0 · · Score: 1

      They're probably ramping up the program in response to the Americans' plans to put missile defense batteries in Central Europe.

      You're right, we should cancel that plan. Oh wait.

      --
      It should be illegal to say that freedom of speech should be limited.
    3. Re:No Fool by Stuart+Gibson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But this story is in the Daily Mail. Since I don't believe anything they say maybe Russia *hasn't* denied it?

      --
      It's all fun and games until a 200' robot dinosaur shows up and trashes Neo-Tokyo... Again
  7. Nuclear Armageddon or Computer Glich? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So happy not to be living in the cold war. Today, I like to think it's harder for fictional missiles to start WW3. Fewer false positives. Of course, here the missile was actually launched...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    1. Re:Nuclear Armageddon or Computer Glich? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      OTOH, it is a bit comforting, in a way, that if the nuclear exchange were to happen, it would actually look quite...nice ;)

      (after all even if only few percent of the rockets would malfunction in similar fashion, there would lots of such sights, without hundreds of rockets flying)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    2. Re:Nuclear Armageddon or Computer Glich? by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      I'm sure nuclear armed nations are made aware of missile tests like these well in advance, either by surveillance or being informed directly

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    3. Re:Nuclear Armageddon or Computer Glich? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Informative

      For ballistic missile launches, other nations are notified well in advance. In this case, Britain, France, and the US were certainly notified, and others may have been provided some level of notice as well.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    4. Re:Nuclear Armageddon or Computer Glich? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]
       
      Seriously though, I'm really curious where you heard something like that. I'd like to read up on these sorts of procedures.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    5. Re:Nuclear Armageddon or Computer Glich? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      At a bare minimum a NAVTEX message was sent warning of a rocket launch. Someone clever in the ways of google maps or google Earth care to map that polygon?

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    6. Re:Nuclear Armageddon or Computer Glich? by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      The Norwegian military have stated (in Norwegian media) that they did know about the launch beforehand, but did not want to say too much, to not reveal observational capabilities. My guess is they were not important enough to recieve official warning, but were "allowed" to find out about the launch.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    7. Re:Nuclear Armageddon or Computer Glich? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Someone on Fark was able to triangulate the launch location within about 20 miles by matching up the photos with the mountains on the horizon. I'm too lazy to pull it up right now but it was basically nothern norway, where norway wraps around the top end of sweden.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
  8. Conspiracy theory! by Vyse+of+Arcadia · · Score: 1

    The failed missile launch is just a cover story. I mean, if we're going to believe extraterrestrials are behind it, why should we let silly things like facts spoil the fun?

    But at least it's a more entertaining story than "It was a weather balloon."

    1. Re:Conspiracy theory! by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

      Not really. It could be both. A failed launch of missile by aliens in a Russian sub.

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    2. Re:Conspiracy theory! by Dewin · · Score: 1

      Illegal or extraterrestrial aliens?

      --
      Of course nobody reads the FAQ! If people read the FAQ, the Questions wouldn't be so Frequently Asked.
    3. Re:Conspiracy theory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illegal AND extraterrestrial aliens.

    4. Re:Conspiracy theory! by Imrik · · Score: 1

      It was a successful fake failed missile launch designed to convince the world that the missile is not yet functional.

    5. Re:Conspiracy theory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, I'm surprised no one's connected the big world leader concentration in Copenhagen to Russian ICBMs getting visually spectacular over Norway. Whether they remotely intendid it or not, the Russians have shown the world that they can put a missle over the Nordic areas right at the unique time that most world leaders Obama et al are either present in the Nordic area or have their attention firmly focused on it by way of 'hopenhagen'!

    6. Re:Conspiracy theory! by chronosan · · Score: 1

      Maybe there is a secret war going on and this is the result of a defeated attack on said leaders?

  9. Don't wary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Norway: Russia, it looks like there is a UFO above our sky. We are very concerned.
    Russia: Oh, no. You do not have any reason to wary. It is not a UFO. It just one of our nuclear bomb loaded missile flew away,

    1. Re:Don't wary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuclear warheads are too expensive to waste on a missile test. They can use a dummy payload just fine.

  10. This was no test! by upto0013 · · Score: 1

    Cthulhu is coming!

  11. bloody nonsense. by Cr0vv · · Score: 5, Funny

    That was no danged failed launch of a missile. Has anyone seen the images? This reply by the Russians is a coverup. This event was far, far bigger in scope and influence. This event was viewed by people, there was no mention of a rocket or a missile, besides how could a device like a missile scribe a path in the sky like that, and then break off with a blue spiral? Ugh. These people must think we are so stupid. This is a spiritual event, not a rocket event. blackcrow.

    1. Re:bloody nonsense. by ktappe · · Score: 1

      You are kidding, right?

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    2. Re:bloody nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit, Slashdot's come around full course. I can't tell the fucking difference between a nutjob and a troll any more!

    3. Re:bloody nonsense. by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      He's been modded funny - he must be!

      --
      This is blinging
    4. Re:bloody nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not really convinced either way yet. That video did not resemble anything I could imagine a rocket doing, but I don't know much about rockets. Does anyone know why the rocket would make a repeating spiral pattern like that and what the protruding light was? So far none of the sites reporting that it is a rocket explain how a rocket makes that pattern. I'm open to suggestions but until I here an explanation I have to side with this guy. That didn't look like a rocket.

    5. Re:bloody nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I am not really convinced either way yet. That video did not resemble anything I could imagine a rocket doing, but I don't know much about rockets. Does anyone know why the rocket would make a repeating spiral pattern like that and what the protruding light was? So far none of the sites reporting that it is a rocket explain how a rocket makes that pattern. I'm open to suggestions but until I here an explanation I have to side with this guy. That didn't look like a rocket.

      1) Fact: The pictures are long-exposures.

      2) Assumption: The rocket is spin-stabilized. (perfectly normal thing for a missile; it's been done for decades)

      3) Observation: A series of photographs showing a stretched-out blue spirally thing that gets bigger as it approaches the big white swirly thing, and a big white swirly thing that eventually turns into a cloudy white donut with a fuzzy blue cone at the center and fades out.

      4) Hypothesis: While in flight, the rocket's plume is bluish, and as the rocket gets closer to you, the apparent width of the plume gets wider. Something goes Very Wrong, perhaps at stage separation, causing the rocket to slightly change course by a few degrees, by sheer coincidence almost straight towards your camera - and simultaneously start venting boatloads of fuel. The vented fuel crystallizes in the upper atmosphere, looking like whitish snow, because the sun is still over the horizon at that altitude. Because it's now headed towards you, it looks like a rotary garden sprinkler - a big white spiral.

      When the damaged rocket runs out of venting fuel, the spiral stops getting new "white" added to it from the inside, but the remaining cone of vented fuel disperses and merges into the donut-shaped pattern seen towards the end of the sequence. (You can even see hints of its true shape - the base of a cone - in these images.)

      5) Supporting evidence: We know where the pictures were taken (news reports), and looking at the horizon (Google earth) in the images, it is clear that the viewers are looking north. Was there anything interesting north of the picture where the images were taken? Why, yes, the Russians were conducting a missile test in an ice-free sea location directly north of the viewer.

      6) Conclusion: A Russian missile test rocket was being fired almost directly towards the viewer, at a low angle, from beyond the horizon. This produced the blue cone. Something went Very Wrong, and the rocket spouts fuel as it heads, more or less, straight towards you. This produced the white spiral on a long exposure photograph. Out of fuel, the debris passed invisibly overhead. The absence of new material being added to the spiral produced the "hole" in the "donut" in the last photographs of the series.

      Sorry dude, it's doing exactly what I'd expect a rocket to do.

  12. Related to CERN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because this happen just after CERN announced the reactivation of a massive energy "accelerator", which I think can be used as particle beam weapon. Russia needs to counter the threat of old Europe, so they try to launch this missile as a counter-protest.

    1. Re:Related to CERN? by travisb828 · · Score: 1

      No this was really a wormhole opened by the AI at the LHC that became self aware milliseconds before the the planet was destroyed by the same black hole that made the LHC's computer systems become self aware.

  13. Bad fuel mix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Given the out of control spiral pattern maybe Vodka wasn't the best choice for rocket fuel even if it was greener.

    1. Re:Bad fuel mix by SanguineV · · Score: 1

      I believe the spiral pattern is a result of vodka fueled rocket scientists.

    2. Re:Bad fuel mix by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Look at the pictures again. There was nothing to suggest uncontrolled action when creating those spirals. My best guess it they're the result of rotation during flight, to prevent the US ABL aircraft from shooting them down. Third stage looks shoddy (4th or 5th picture shows the contrail all over the place vanishing into the distance.)

      Damn pretty effect, though.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  14. If they can repeat the behavior on a smaller scale by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is a really cool new kind of fireworks. I've never seen one do this before.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  15. At least it wasnt a nuke plant going up... by thaddeusthudpucker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...Like in 1986 when it took radiation alarms going off in fucking SWEDEN before they admitted that they had literally nuked a city or two...

    1. Re:At least it wasnt a nuke plant going up... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      A lot because the winds were unfortunate, and we had a rainy day that moment.

      Still bad, but needed nuance in your post.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:At least it wasnt a nuke plant going up... by huge · · Score: 1

      So true. Here is a site that I always find relevant when discussion veers into this specific incident.

      --
      -- Reality checks don't bounce.
    3. Re:At least it wasnt a nuke plant going up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was not radiation detectors that went off. It was spotted on a sattelite photo that one of the basins for cooling water was emptied.
      This was proof that the reactor was offline, and not operational (like the Russians said up until that point).

    4. Re:At least it wasnt a nuke plant going up... by DrKnark · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nuking a city would in my mind imply an explosion created by nuclear reactions. The explosion in Chernobyl was created by good old chemical reactions (hydrogren gas).

    5. Re:At least it wasnt a nuke plant going up... by khallow · · Score: 1

      It was not radiation detectors that went off.

      From what I understand radiation detectors at a nuclear plant in Sweden were how Scandinavia found out. They found out something was up when people entering the plant were tripping the radiative alarms.

    6. Re:At least it wasnt a nuke plant going up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be the Ukrainian SSR...

  16. Re:If they can repeat the behavior on a smaller sc by Yvan256 · · Score: 1
  17. In Soviet Russia.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    signs of super advanced civilization usually turn out to be a mirage.

  18. Underwater aircraft launch of F-15 by viking80 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Thye can even launch aircrafts from underwater aircraft carriers. When youtube asks you to confirm that you have a TOP SECRET security rating, you must answer yes to see video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clIUY0U0xAU

    --
    don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
    1. Re:Underwater aircraft launch of F-15 by tuxicle · · Score: 1

      Heh, what I'd like to see is that F-15 landing on (in?) the sub.

    2. Re:Underwater aircraft launch of F-15 by Sitrix · · Score: 3, Informative

      LOL, that video never gets old. :) Sad thing is that the whole "Submarine Aircraft Carrier" thing was done before plenty of times in the past. :)

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12u-ppn_Q3M --- Japanese Submarine Aircraft Carrier
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_aircraft_carrier

  19. A missile that hypnotizes you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe they want to create a weapon that hypnotizes you. And once you are hypnotized they recruit you hahaha

    1. Re:A missile that hypnotizes you by Sumbius · · Score: 1

      ...Or nuke you. Just think about it. The entire nation frozen staring and pointing at the sky (swirly thing alert), while the Russians do what they want.

    2. Re:A missile that hypnotizes you by Archon-X · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is swirly thing above or below orange?

    3. Re:A missile that hypnotizes you by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn’t a Hypnotoad hailstorm be more effective?

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    4. Re:A missile that hypnotizes you by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      If you wanted to see Magnolia, I recommend not to click the above link. It may well be the biggest spoiler ever. Sorry, forgot about that.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  20. Russia? I doubt it. by Bottoms · · Score: 1

    Russia? I doubt it. I bet Elon Musk was just trying to launch another bottle rocket again. Keep pumping air Elon! You'll eventually get enough pressure into that coke bottle!

  21. CGI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Request the Russians screw up more missile launches cause those pictures are stonking amazing.

    1. Re:CGI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we will - because the entire Bulava project was a bad idea from the beginning, and it doesn't seem close to be axed - unfortunately..

  22. Total Freak Out by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Imagine though how freaked out one would be walking outside and suddenly seeing a giant spinning spiral with a sci-fi-ish blue trail passing through the middle. Based on the youtube vids I saw, one could actually perceive the spinning motion.

    And double freaked out if walking out of a movie theater after seeing a scary movie. That's just one goddam weird pattern.

     

  23. Yeah, but this is Slashdot by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    There is indeed a great deal going on which we cannot see, but this event didn't fit the patterns of any previous UFO/energetic phenomenon I've seen or read about. It did, however, fit the pattern of a rocket launch gone wrong. Watch the videos on the original news site again. I think the spectacular photographs were not accurately reporting the event as it would have been eye-witnessed. They looked like long exposures to me, and probably were in order to get that level of light. A spinning firework would create much the same effect with the correct camera settings.

    Anyway, if you want to consider the subconscious meta-game going on here, remember, this is Slashdot. Such an obvious UFO story like this simply doesn't get exposure here unless the outcome is already instinctively recognized in advance to be mundane. That's how it works. People like you go off half-cocked and look/sound nuts, thus further reinforcing fear in the Muggles of exploring the unknown.

    Just another, "Fake Moon Landing", I'm afraid.

    -FL

    1. Re:Yeah, but this is Slashdot by maxume · · Score: 1

      What happened that you are back to calling us muggles, rather than beseeching us to join you in your enlightenment and awareness?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Yeah, but this is Slashdot by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      What happened that you are back to calling us muggles, rather than beseeching us to join you in your enlightenment and awareness?

      Seriously? --It was an incident yesterday where I had to deal with a person in authority making lives difficult with a degree of fortified stubbornness which bordered on mental retardation.

      Honestly, I'm FAR from perfect. I know that. I find myself confused by how pissed off I can get with humanity even as I walk around heartbroken by watching people almost seem to enjoy making idiotic choices which lead to harm and suffering. I know the answer is patience and leadership through example, but sometimes cuddling and encouraging people when a dose of unforgiving wake-the-hell-up seems to be more effective.

      I'm back and forth on that one. When I get it all figured out, I'll let everybody know. I suspect both are necessary; shocks to the system interrupt sleep and wishful thinking, and hand-holding provides the encouragement necessary to walk a tough path. But I certainly don't have the balance worked out. Heck, I have trouble enough just trying to gauge the value and valance of basic information. I've been fighting tooth and nail with these questions a lot over the years, and I don't anticipate an answer any time soon. I am getting closer, though. Comments like yours help.

      -FL

  24. Aliens from outer space by mysidia · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Missile launch" is just a coverup.

    Norway's version of "It was just a weather balloon".

  25. ITS OKAY, FOLKS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Russia's just launching missiles from nuclear subs, that's all.

    1. Re:ITS OKAY, FOLKS by damburger · · Score: 1

      Yup, only evil countries do that. But hey, I knew my country (UK) was evil already :)

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  26. I'm shocked! by cyberzephyr · · Score: 0

    Anyone could have seen it was a rocket or missile spiralling out of control. I knew it the minute i saw the first picture. It was a very nice pic of an out of control missile. Rockets typically blow up in flight if they are really flawed hopefully.

    I rather have peace anyway. Rather a missile blow up in production than a successful one work.

    --
    I'm here for the experience, not the Hyperbole.
  27. Anti-ICBM Laser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being that its public knowledge that Russia and the US have active missile defense programs, when I saw the videos, the only explanation I could come up with is its an argon (blue-green) laser.

    A few extra insights: I came up with this idea because at that altitude, the spiral is spinning very fast -- the outlying arms must be going a few mach, which is too fast to be an atmospheric anomaly. I was guessing the blue/green cone and the spiral were an effect caused by a spread pattern of this supposed laser. That makes sense because a spread pattern would be needed to combat MRVs, or Multiple Reentry Vehicles -- basically "cluster-nukes" -- which is what all modern ICBMs are. -- This laser would scan an area of the sky to destroy all of the separate reentry vehicles from an ICBM.

    I think this is a much more plausible explanation, mainly because of the speed of that rotation. It would also make sense that Russia would be hush hush about missile defense, because defense against ICBMs brings even more power than ICBMs in themselves.

    1. Re:Anti-ICBM Laser by Goaway · · Score: 1

      The contrail was blue because of Rayleigh scattering. Same reason the sky is blue. The white spiral was going too fast for an "atmospheric anomaly" because it was outside the atmosphere.

  28. Underwater launches by jamax · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While reading through suprisingly ignorant comments on _new_ tech of launching an ICMB from submerged position (this is slashdot, we are all supposed to be armchair warriors with underdeveloped muscle tissue and oversized brains filled with data on weaponry we would never, ever see unless its on youtube) and replies of ppl putting the record straight I just want to add this little nugget of information here:

    In 199something (don't remember, but it was a crappy year in Russia - lost of bad news, the story got lost and resurfaced only in 2002 I think) Russian submarine has successfully launched ITS ENTIRE PAYLOAD in quick succession (as in several seconds between missiles) from submerged position - quite a feat of technology as well as personel training, since when launching more than one ICBM in quick succession one must take into account subs' weight change after the first missile leaves (it begins to surface), uneven wight distribution as pumps begin to fill ballast tanks with water to compensate just when the second missile fires, actual RECOIL begins to matter too - it's not much of a problem when you fire just once, but it becomes one if the sub's being shaken just as another missile is attmepting its launch..

    So all in all - ICBMS from under water = old news.

    Cheers

    1. Re:Underwater launches by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > So all in all - ICBMS from under water = old news.

      49 years old, to be exact.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Underwater launches by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      While reading through suprisingly ignorant comments on _new_ tech of launching an ICMB from submerged position (this is slashdot, we are all supposed to be armchair warriors with underdeveloped muscle tissue and oversized brains filled with data on weaponry we would never, ever see unless its on youtube)

      That's the stereotype. But some of us have actually been there, done that, as well as being serious amateur historians and students of the weapons and technology involved.
       
      Disclaimer: I am one such. I was a Ballistic Missile Fire Control tech for the USN, and have studied SLBM technology and operations for decades.
       

      In 199something (don't remember, but it was a crappy year in Russia - lost of bad news, the story got lost and resurfaced only in 2002 I think) Russian submarine has successfully launched ITS ENTIRE PAYLOAD in quick succession (as in several seconds between missiles) from submerged position - quite a feat of technology

      Hardly. Both the US and Russia have been able to do so since the early 60's.
       
      Missile submarines are *designed* to be able to salvo their weapons within a short time frame. It's just that nobody regularly salvos a full load of test missiles because missiles are expensive and the maintenance required on the tubes afterward is time consuming.
       
      US/UK (and I presume French and Russian) submarines are built with automatic systems to manage the ballast functions. It's not a particularly complex algorithm or overall problem. (The transistor based analog system US SSBN's started using in the early 70's, replacing an earlier system, fit in a box not much larger than a shoebox.) It's not even particularly difficult to do manually, anyone with average coordination can do so with a few days of intensive training. (I suspect a modern gamer would require even less.)
       

      So all in all - ICBMS from under water = old news.

      Very, very old news.

  29. What happened to Russia? by damburger · · Score: 1

    Wheres the beloved monolithic wall of paranoid state security? The day after the event and they're all "sorry guys, we screwed up one of our missile tests. Here are the details."

    Unless its all a cunning Russkie ruse...

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    1. Re:What happened to Russia? by cpscotti · · Score: 2, Funny

      Anyway, we'll just drink vodka with friends and continue feeding our own conspiracy theories saying that in fact this is just a big decoy for something Yuri made to control everyone's mind into believing that, in fact, the "t.A.T.u." girls ARE lesbians!

  30. Russians launched a Photoshop missile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't you guys see the PIXELS?! The missile went into the sky and spewed PIXELS!! It's Photoshopped!!

  31. Launch history of the Bulava by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    The launch history of the Bulava is discussed here. It's worked a few times, but they've been having failures in minor components like explosive bolts. That indicates quality control problems in the supply chain, not design problems.

    It's hard to restart an entire high-tech supply chain when there hasn't been any demand for years. The US lost the ability to build nuclear weapons for over a decade.

    1. Re:Launch history of the Bulava by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      You are right, but it's hard to determine the soundness of a design if QC is lacking, even in the supply chain.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    2. Re:Launch history of the Bulava by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The launch history of the Bulava is discussed here. It's worked a few times, but they've been having failures in minor components like explosive bolts.

      From your link, here are all Bulava failures:

      "2005 Sept. 27: The first test launch of the Bulava missile ended with mixed results as its warhead exploded before reaching the Kura impact range, the Kommersant newspaper reported. Later sources indicated the failure of the third stage. The rocket was launched from a submarine stationed on the ocean surface."

      "2006 Sept. 7: Test launch of the Bulava missile from the Dmitry Donskoy submarine failed after several minutes in flight due to the problems in the flight control system. The missile fell into the sea about a minute after the launch. The sub was not affected and was returning to Severodvinsk base submerged, according to the Russian navy spokesman. Later reports blamed the engine of the first stage for the failure, as well as its flight control system."

      "2006 Oct. 25, 17:05 Moscow Time: A test launch of the Bulava-M missile from Dmitry Donskoy submarine deployed in the White Sea failed some 200 seconds after liftoff due to the apparent failure of the flight control system, the Kommersant newspaper reported. Navy spokesman told Interfax-AVN news agency that the missile deviated from the nominal trajectory and most likely self-liquidated. According to the Kommersant, a string of failures during test threatens an ambitious schedule of no more than 10 test launches of the Bulava before its acceptance into the armaments of the Russian navy previously scheduled for 2007."

      "2006 Dec. 21: A test launch of the Bulava ballistic missile failed as a result of the flight control failure onboard the third stage of the missile some three minutes after the liftoff. A self-destruct mechanism was apparently activated."

      "2007 Nov. 11: A test launch of the Bulava missile failed, triggering a self-destruct mechanism some 23 seconds after a liftoff."

      "2008 Dec. 23: A long-anticipated launch of the Bulava missile ended in another failure, prompting soul-searching within the Russian military industrial complex. According to the official Russian sources, the missile lifted off from Dmitry Donskoy submarine in the White Sea on Dec. 23, 2008, at 06:00 Moscow Time, targeting the Kura impact range on the Kamchatka Peninsula. Russian press quoted various sources saying that in-flight problems arose soon after the separation of the first stage. The Vzglyad newspaper quoted an anonymous source on Dec. 23, claiming that two first stages worked flawlessly and the third stage was a culprit. At the same time, RIA Novosti quoted a Russian Navy representative as saying that the number of test launches of the Bulava missile scheduled for 2009 was increased from three-four to at least five. The launch was previously scheduled for Dec. 21, 2008. The Russian press later cited faulty pyrobolts as culprits in the failure and poor quality during the manufacturing was blamed."

      "2009 July 15: Another attempt to rehabilitate the Bulava ballistic missile ended in failure. Dmitry Donskoy submarine submerged in White Sea fired the missile on July 15, 2009. However 28 seconds after the liftoff the missile deviated from its course and self-destructed. Only a day later, the information about the failure appeared in the Russian media. Four days later, a semi-official Interfax news agency quoted a member of the investigation commission as saying that a gas generator producing power for the flight control system was a culprit. In the wake of the failure, Yuri Solomonov, the head of Moscow Institute of Thermal technology, which developed the missile, resigned his post on July 22. On July 26, 2009, admiral Vladimir Vysotsky, the supreme commander of the Russian Navy, told RIA Novosti news agency that testing of the Bulava missile would continue, even though it was not an ideal weapon for the fleet. Vysotsky said that advanced planning for a new generation wea

  32. Nukular winter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...will cancel out global warming.

  33. thanks russia ... saved a lot of UFO hunters time. by cheap.computer · · Score: 1

    With this Mia culpa Russia has saved a lot of time for all the UFO hunters & conspirators. Lets all return to the regular scheduled programming of US Health Care reform debate.

  34. Obvious when you think about it. by KickInNutsAnalogyGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's quite obvious when given some thought. Consider the following:

    You are at a party relaxing and enjoying yourself. At some point you lose track of your surroundings and time. When you come to, you remember being junk-kicked in your man business some 180 times. You're pretty sure in was someone you met at the party by the name of Ivan Jnkkckr. After a bit of investigative work you track down Ivan's number from another guest that attended the party. Ivan denies junk-kicking you in your man business.

    After further investigation and conversations with other party attendees, you come into possession of some cellphone video. The videos show quite Ivan's foot spinning in a spiral pattern while junk-kicking you in your man business some 180 times. You confront Ivan Jnkkckr with multiple videos showing from multiple angles the relentless assault on your now decimated nuts. Ivan then promply admits that he spiral junk-kicked your nuts.

    Obviously Ivan knew he had junk-kicked your man business; he just needed the video evidence to compel him to come clean.

    1. Re:Obvious when you think about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another BAG alt... O_o

  35. The Daily Mail is not a good reference by kegon · · Score: 1

    There is also an article on this at The Daily Mail.

    The Daily Mail ? That bastion of truth ?

    It was quite a good summary until that link got added; to what ? Improve the quality ? This isn't Wikipedia you know. And no, I'm not new here.

    1. Re:The Daily Mail is not a good reference by Ch_Omega · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I had never heard about The Daily Mail untill wednesday. It just happened to be the first English-language newspaper I found covering the lightshow over Norway (all other articles I found at the time was in Norwegian), so I posted the article English article. After finding the BarentsObserver article, I also checked if The Daily Mail had updated its article, and it had, so I added it too, as they apeared to have somewhat more information than the Barents Observer one. However, after reading a bit about The Daily Mail, I probably won't reference it again in the future.

    2. Re:The Daily Mail is not a good reference by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > It was quite a good summary until that link got added; to what ? Improve the
      > quality ?

      To prove that the Daily Mail will publish _anything_, even if it happens to be true?

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:The Daily Mail is not a good reference by kegon · · Score: 1

      As you probably realised, it's full of heavily opinionated articles usually aimed at more malleable/lower middle intelligence people; including celebrity gossip and trivia. A lot of the news it publishes is true, however, they also have articles of the type "Is my cat psychic?". If some news is exclusively reported in the Daily Mail you start to question it's veracity or quality, I know that in this case the news was also reported in other sources.

  36. None by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There were actually no reports of UFOs, but rather of "strange lighting show all over northern norway".

    Only the die-hard UFO-believers would believe this was a UFO. It was either too strange, or someone guessed its a rocket of some kind.

    When someone sees one or more saucers fly over the sky, go in strange patterns and then zip faster than you can see. THEN you'll get UFO reports..

  37. Tinfoil is a plot!!!11!eleventeen by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sure, that's what the Government and their Illuminati masters want you to believe. So you're wearing roughly a metallic hemisphere on your head, right? Sure, it reflects mind control rays coming from upwards and back, but what about rays coming from the front, hmm? Right, those get reflected and focused, like by a telescope mirror, inside your brain. And do you think that the proliferation of WiFi hotspots and police radars and whatnot at ground level is just a coincidence? Hmm? Wake up, people! ;)

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Tinfoil is a plot!!!11!eleventeen by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      Well, duh, if you color the inside of the tinfoil black with magic marker, it defeats these. Moron.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    2. Re:Tinfoil is a plot!!!11!eleventeen by ex_ottoyuhr · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, it's even worse. Tinfoil hats block most radio signals, but they amplify signals on certain bands reserved for government use.

  38. Clancy by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

    Clancy, for one; it's fiction, but he tends to do his research pretty well. When SAC-NORAD sees a heat bloom they verify that there's no launch scheduled before going crazy. The West Wing suggests it gets tricky when unofficial nuclear powers like Israel launch nukes, and IIRC also says that the US checks scheduled launches that other nuclear powers notify them of before launching. (I saw it in popular culture, so it must be true. :))

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  39. Re:If they can repeat the behavior on a smaller sc by Animaether · · Score: 1

    This doesn't work so easily on a smaller scale.

    The reason it works for the rocket in question is because it's rather big, has lots of propellant, which it ejects at a fairly high velocity relative to its rate of rotation (spinning), which coupled with the fact that it's rather high up allows for a large vapor trail.

    If you compare that to existing consumer glass fireworks which -does- have spinners.. and I'll link to a little home-made thing (don't try this at home, etc.)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7WSEmXA6s4 ...then you'll see that the effect extinguishes very quickly and you never really see much of a spiral.
    You would essentially have to 1. replace the little fountain with a smoke bomb instead and 2. get that smoke to be ejected quickly (perhaps through a nozzle).

    Unfortunately, that doesn't get rid of the scale of turbulence in air and - if performed outside - wind etc. which will affect these small scale effects much more than that of the rocket.

    In short... I don't think it can be done at a small scale while keeping the effect. You *might* be able to get it reasonably going with non-consumer class fireworks. But I'll leave that for the chaps at freakpyromaniacs.com and such to figure out.

  40. Life, money and energy by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    I wonder how much lives, energy and money these weapons that we should never use has cost us.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:Life, money and energy by Grygus · · Score: 1

      We almost certainly would have had World War III by now if not for the existence of nuclear weapons. So the question isn't how much they have cost, but whether that cost has been worth it.

    2. Re:Life, money and energy by base3 · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much developing them so that the enemy wasn't the only one that had them has saved us.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    3. Re:Life, money and energy by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      Probably less lives, energy and money that these weapons saved us from. Fear of Nuclear war prevented the US from going to war directly with Russia. The USA-Russia cold war may in fact be the first time that the two most powerful national enemies NEVER fought a war.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    4. Re:Life, money and energy by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much developing them so that the enemy wasn't the only one that had them has saved us.

      So you're saying the U.S is the enemy are you? Because my memory of history is that the U.S had Nuclear weapons first and then the rest of the nuclear armed nations followed.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    5. Re:Life, money and energy by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      We almost certainly would have had World War III by now if not for the existence of nuclear weapons.

      But the option is still on the table. We can still have a Nuclear War, just not WWIII between symmetrical opponents like the US and USSR. However, as these tests demonstrate, Russia and the U.S are still maintaining their Nuclear arsenals so the threat of a Nuclear exchange is still very much on the table. There has been no dis-armament treaty between any of the big players in the U.N Security council and the threat of an asymmetrical exchange of Nuclear weapons is now a real concern.

      In reality what you are saying is the threat has gone from complete and total annihilation with Nuclear weapons to partial annihilation with Nuclear weapons. The premise of Nuclear weapons that made them a deterrent was Mutually Assured Destruction (or M.A.D) but now that you have the possibility of factional control of Nuclear weapons (for example in Pakistan) you now have an actual threat of someone using a Nuclear warhead AND of that conflict escalating via the monitoring systems of the big players.

      So the question isn't how much they have cost, but whether that cost has been worth it.

      Well I actually question the need for Nuclear weapons *at all*. Germany was in an impossible situation and the was no Nuclear strike there and there was no way that Japan, a country without *any* usable natural resources, was going to win a long term conflict with an industrial giant like the U.S. They were doomed to defeat from the moment they bombed Pearl Harbor. Had the U.S decided to act sooner than the last 5 minutes of WWI then I question that even Germany would have gotten as far as it did. Of course this is all as speculative as saying "we would have had WWIII by now", so I'm just mentioning that these are the historical circumstances that cast doubt of the actual need for Nuclear Weapons.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    6. Re:Life, money and energy by base3 · · Score: 1

      False dichotomy. The U.S.S.R. was on track to developing them and the last thing the free world needed was for the Reds to have them first. Unless, that is, you wish you had grown up with a taste for harsh vodka and fish eggs.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    7. Re:Life, money and energy by base3 · · Score: 1

      A marginal nuclear power that detonates one nuke is signing his nation's death warrant--it's not Mutual Assured Destruction; it's assured self-destruction. That and MAD with the major world powers having the weapons are much more reassuring to me than the touchy-feely idea of unilateral disarmament (to which I say, "you first.").

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    8. Re:Life, money and energy by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      To play out those scenarios the marginal powers probably don't launch on an ICBM with a trackable trajectory, they deploy it over sea or similar.

      Or maybe if they're devious they sneak it into their neighbor's country and launch it from there.

      The trouble with any-lateral disarmament is that people lie. But it's possible the risks aren't in MAD's favor either.

      I guess we'll see when San Diego takes one on the cheek.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    9. Re:Life, money and energy by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Unable to accept responsibility. The USSR set off Joe One four years after the US. Pandora's box was well and truly open by then.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    10. Re:Life, money and energy by base3 · · Score: 1

      Someone was going to be first to open the box. Better it was we who caught hope after it was opened.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    11. Re:Life, money and energy by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Well I guess that explains your talent for deceit then.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    12. Re:Life, money and energy by base3 · · Score: 1

      What the fuck are you talking about? Is that the only way you have to "win" an argument?

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    13. Re:Life, money and energy by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      What the fuck are you talking about?

      You said: Better it was we who caught hope after it was opened. I replied:Well I guess that explains your talent for deceit then.

      Funny, that's what I thought when I first read your reply. You were the one who chose to use the symbolism of the story, why _the_fuck_ do I have to *explain* it to you.

      Is that the only way you have to "win" an argument?

      If you present an argument, then I'll have an opportunity to.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    14. Re:Life, money and energy by base3 · · Score: 1

      Okay, you're either being a _fucking_ _dick_ or you're over my head. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and let you explain to me how invoking catching hope from Pandora's box (which was the metaphor you used for the creation of the bomb shows anything about my "talent for deceit." If there's a huge gap in my classical knowledge that's causing me to miss a reference, I'll give you the apology due.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    15. Re:Life, money and energy by base3 · · Score: 1

      Okay, I apologize. I had to look on Wikipedia to find it, but you're referring to Pandora's "deceitful nature." While the ad hominem still pisses me off and I'm still glad we got the bomb before the Commies, at least I learned something today.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    16. Re:Life, money and energy by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      which was the metaphor you used for the creation of the bomb shows anything about my "talent for deceit.

      It wasn't about *you* personally, so don't take it personally. It was about America being Pandora - talk about high fucking maintenance - take it fucking easy dood.

      If there's a huge gap in my classical knowledge that's causing me to miss a reference, I'll give you the apology due.

      then pay attention to what Hermes taught Pandora.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    17. Re:Life, money and energy by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Okay, I apologize.

      Apology accepted.

      I'm still glad we got the bomb before the Commies

      Well if Roosavelt decided to join earlier than the last 5 minutes of WW2 you probably wouldn't have needed it AND you would have had a chance to annex the south of Russia and the USSR wouldn't of existed - as usual America manufactures it's enemies. Still the red's couldn't be all that bad, 20 million of them died stopping Hitler. It took Japan to give you guys a bloody nose before you woke from your collective apathy ;-)

      at least I learned something today.

      A service I am happy to provide

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  41. Dang... by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 1

    And here I thought The Final Countdown movie was going to be real life!

    --
    There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
  42. no, in fact china was hostile to vietnam by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Informative

    at first after world war 2 there was an idealism in the air that marxism/ communism would result in cooperation between russia and china. but this quickly fell victim to the usual imperialistic instincts of such vast empires. there were massive military buildups along the chinese-russian border, over stupid petty disagreements like tiny useless islands in the amur river (border between russia and manchuria). american intelligence got wind of this and sensed an opportunity: the tension between russia and china was one of the reasons nixon's about face on china and sudden seeking of warm relations with china at the time made so much strategic sense: drive a wedge between powerful enemies of the usa

    so when vietnam aligned itself with russia, it was sort of china's version of the united states' experience with cuba: a tiny southern country right on its border having the audacity to fall the influence of a powerful enemy. in fact, after the vietnam war, china had its own version of the bay of pigs (on a much larger scale): china and vietnam went to war

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

    100,000 vietnamese civilians were killed by the chinese in that 1979-1980 war. but the chinese lost this war badly, and chinese propaganda has pretty much covered the whole event up and erased the war from chinese history books. because it was embarrassing how badly china lost. to this day, chinese veterans of that war are officially shunned and denied benefits or even recognition

    you have to admire the vietnamese: they kicked out a major colonial power, the french. then they took on a world superpower, the americans. and finished it off by repulsing the regional power, china. in one long sustained 30-40 year very bloody struggle, the vietnamese kicked everyone's asses

    vietnam deserves much respect, they have suffered heavily for their rightful independence

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:no, in fact china was hostile to vietnam by Pictish+Prince · · Score: 1

      Exactly correct. The only thing I could add is that there has been intermittent conflict between China & Vietnam for the past 1,000 years, so they've had a lot of practice.

      --
      Only his tendency toward a dazed stupor prevented him from screaming aloud.
  43. Hatemail? by zygotic+mitosis · · Score: 1

    Why did this story get tagged 'hatemail'?

    1. Re:Hatemail? by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      The Daily Mail (one of the cited sources) has a long tradition of sensationalizing news, libel, and outright fabrication. It also has a decidedly "right wing" bias (I put quotes there because depending on where you live, the DM may not seem right wing at all).

      Hard to see why someone would take this opportunity to express their views on british tabloids but there you have it.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
  44. bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you believe that then you you probably deserve what's coming

  45. Missile my ass. It was a marketing ploy by wiredog · · Score: 1

    for this. Why didja think they did it over Scandinavia.

  46. UFO for sure by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    I looked at the pattern of the circular design made by the stray so called missile, and don't buy it for a second.
    The spiral pattern is to perfect (more like a trace lining of light sent out from something....) as a stray missile would have
    deviance in its pattern, and there was none in the pattern we saw in the sky, it was way to perfect for it to be a stray missile.

    I vote on UFO, or maybe a flashlight behind a cloud shining through a design of a circular nature.

    1. Re:UFO for sure by mtemmerm · · Score: 1

      Some flashlight!

  47. More Valuable As Fireworks Display Than as Weapon by littlewink · · Score: 1

    The Russians have produced the most stunning fireworks display I've seen in 20 years. If they can reproduce it and commercialize it they may be able to compete with the Chinese. Forget about ICBMs: the money's in fireworks.

  48. Yes Jered would not be impressed... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    if people were firing land based subs.

  49. What About the Light Beam? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    The spiral started off with a green ray of light, then the spiral around where the ray pointed in the sky. There's also a very big beam of white light pointing from the ground/water up into the spiral for the duration. How does the missile explain these light beams?

    And how doe every photo of the formation, from all kinds of different angles, all see the same spiral that the 3D twisting project into to the observer? Someone watching on-axis would see that perfect spiral, but not all the observers at all the angles.

    Until those other pieces of actual evidence seen by many people and appearing in many photos and videos are explained, I don't believe it's a missile. And since the Russians have said it's a missile, compromising a secret military test to do so, what happened that also explains the Russians saying that, especially if it's not a missile?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:What About the Light Beam? by Harald+Paulsen · · Score: 1

      And how doe every photo of the formation, from all kinds of different angles, all see the same spiral that the 3D twisting project into to the observer? Someone watching on-axis would see that perfect spiral, but not all the observers at all the angles.

      Have you seen northern Norway?

      http://www.virtualsources.com/Countries/Europe%20Countries/no-map.gif

      It would take maybe 1-2 hours to cross Norway from west to east so far north. So if the missile was launched north-east of norway most of northern norway would be on the same axis.

      --
      Harald
    2. Re:What About the Light Beam? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      But the photos and videos are from a wide variety of angles (looks like within at least 20 degrees span), yet the spiral looks like a spiral in a plane from all those angles. Not like a complex 3D helix that projects to a spiral on-axis, but which wouldn't look like a 2D spiral from 10 degrees or more off-axis.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  50. Coincidence? by DarthVain · · Score: 2, Funny

    Cold War ends, Global Warming Starts?

    Don't worry, its just the Russians in the fight to stop Global Warm...erm Climate Change.

  51. Failure my ass, it worked as intended by cpu_fusion · · Score: 1

    Given how it blanketed the sky, I'd expect it is some sort of anti-missile/anti-aircraft defense component. Possibly related to stealth technology detection. Keep in mind the Russians have been making a nice chunk of change from helping Iran build nuclear plants and defend them. This would be the ideal time for the Russians to point out to the West, through a highly visible demonstration like this, that there may be some surprises in store for an attack on Iran.

    My 2 cents.

  52. Celebration? by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

    Was the missile launch Russia's celebration of the Nobel Awards going on this week?

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
  53. I think we all kinow what this means... by Microsift · · Score: 1

    The aliens have taken over the Kreml

    --
    My other sig is extremely clever...
    1. Re:I think we all kinow what this means... by Microsift · · Score: 1

      I don't know wHat I was thinking thEre's no way aLiens Perpetrated this act and MadE the Kremlin their bitch

      --
      My other sig is extremely clever...
  54. In Russia... by flyneye · · Score: 1

    In Russia we no longer conquer our neighbors, we have new rocket program to hypnotize them into submission.
    Just watch the pretty lights, you are getting sleepy comrade, verry sleepy ,yet you retain a lucid state.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  55. insert obligatory Soviet era joke here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia, Missile Launches YOU!

  56. Re:thanks russia ... saved a lot of UFO hunters ti by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    Quite the contrary. It just brings the Russian navy in on the conspiracy.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  57. Sigh... by Majestix · · Score: 1

    ...and here i was hoping that we'd come across something truly unknown to us. Oh well, back to the dreaming board.

    --
    --- I was far from home, and the spell of the Eastern sea was upon me. -Lovecraft-
  58. Spiral Image Too Perfect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nonsense, there has never been a "natural" occurance even similar to this PERFECT SPIRAL IMAGE that seems to be projected into the atmosphere. Is it possible that it is the result of multiple lasers (Weaponry Test) that originated from the ground?

  59. Re:Martian invasion has begun; propoganda for mass by Khisanth+Magus · · Score: 1

    Just a quick note: You try living in the middle of nowhere in Iowa where the roads are poorly plowed if they are plowed at all, and drive anything except a 4WD SUV or truck. You can join the rest of the people in the ditches on the side of the road.

  60. Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find it interesting that this happened at the same time the President visited Norway to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. Was there some sort of terrorist (or other) attach? Some new Secret Service toy used to thwart it?

    I have yet to hear how a Russian missile could possibly produce the effects in that video.