Mystery Missile Launched Near LA

J. L. Tympanum writes "CBS News is reporting the launch of an unidentified missile off the coast of California. No one wants to take credit for it." The article has visuals taken from a CBS affiliate's helicopter, and a Navy spokesman said it wasn't theirs.

Comments

Obvious Explanation

[eldavojohn]

A Google van was dispatched to get street view data of the Moon.

*ominous voice* Phase II has started ahead of schedule ... but it's still in Beta.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[rvr777]

"Sorry, the Moon has not allowed us to display street view. Check again later."

Re:Obvious Explanation

[windcask]

Then 'accidentally' sniffs Facebook credentials from extraterrestrials and extends Costa Rica's border all the way to the Kuiper Belt. Film at eleven.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

Almost. According to the summary, "an unidentified missile of the coast of California", the coast of California was sent to do the job. Good riddance.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Idbar]

In an unrelated note, the other night I logged in to WOPR.gov and started playing this GTW game! I made my first move, and I'm waiting for my opponent.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[aliquis]

First shots of the natives:
http://www.markpeterhughes.com/photos/20070600LMAcrossAmerica/SDtoIN/08WI_1_CheeseHeads.JPG

Re:Obvious Explanation

[jgagnon]

Out of nowhere, Canada invades the US in search of weapons of mass destruction.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Lord Ender]

I'm pretty sure google uses Chevy Cobalts for their StreetView data. This makes a lot of sense, as it would be expensive to lift a much heavier van to the moon.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[iluvcapra]

That's no moon...

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody expects the Canadian inquisition!

Re:Obvious Explanation

[mangu]

I tried palying GTW, too, but a script kiddie at colossus.gov cracked the system and won't let me play anymore.

Now it's just him and some other dumbass at guardian.ru playing that game.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[TrisexualPuppy]

My guess is that it was the Navy testing some sort of prototype missile. Most of this stuff is highly classified, and you're not going to know about it until it is incredibly inconvenient to keep it a secret anymore. My uncle used to work with McDonnell Douglas and told that by the time that something became public, it had been under development for ten years, and the potential enemies already knew the details through leaks. At the testing phase, it would become feasible to make it known to the general public.

For instance, it was years before the Lockheed F-117 was widely known due to secrecy and then general media suppression once it was known to exist.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

But at least they are a lot more polite than the Spanish inquisition...

Re:Obvious Explanation

[k6mfw]

I get "Firefox can't find the server at www.wopr.gov."

Re:Obvious Explanation

[node 3]

You have to dial in directly.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Geraden]

If that were the case, then the military would not have made the mistake of launching this in view of a major city, and certainly not when atmospheric conditions would light the exhaust plume to provide MAXIMUM visibility.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

The Pirate Bay to be hosted from orbit in 3, 2, 1, ...

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, did you even read what he said before you posted?

Re:Obvious Explanation

[interkin3tic]

Feh, good luck on finding them. We only have like 2 million of them.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[KDR_11k]

Are we certain that this was a friendly missile, not e.g. a Chinese sub saying "look where we managed to drive this thing"?

Re:Obvious Explanation

[IndustrialComplex]

Are we certain that this was a friendly missile, not e.g. a Chinese sub saying "look where we managed to drive this thing"?

China may be bold, but sub launching a missile within a few miles of major US cities and military installations is a quick way to nuclear annihilation.

That sort of action would have had even Denzel rushing to turn the second key.

Chinese sub simply popping up in US coastal waters would likely involve it being attacked. (Submarine warfare does not follow the same rules that surface naval warfare follows. If you are on a sub, even in 'peacetime' you are always under threat of being attacked)

The level of provocation that a Chinese sub launching a missile so close to major population centers? They wouldn't try it. It would surprise me if North Korea would try something so bone-headed. No way in hell it was China.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[c6gunner]

For instance, it was years before the Lockheed F-117 was widely known due to secrecy and then general media suppression once it was known to exist.

Yah, and we knew about the F-22 before the winning bid was even selected. The days of really cool secret military projects are long gone. These days it's just a handful of 70-year-old guys in the old skunk-works hangar screwing around with technology that was obsolete 5 years ago.

Given the possibility of this being a "secret military missile", or it being just an aircraft contrail that someone mistook for a missile, which do you think is more likely?

Re:Obvious Explanation

[m509272]

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. 35 miles off the US coast? Doesn't seem like we would need to do that ourselves for any reason.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Hillgiant]

Brute-forcing the password can be time consuming.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Cytotoxic]

Given the possibility of this being a "secret military missile", or it being just an aircraft contrail that someone mistook for a missile, which do you think is more likely?

I take it you didn't watch the video. It is clearly a rather large rocket, clearly on a trajectory headed for at least space, perhaps orbit. Because the thing was launched so close to US military bases and US population centers, I discount the notion that it could be a foreign launch (based on the fact that we haven't gone to Def-Con 1 or whatever they call it these days). It is also retrograde in orientation, which means it isn't likely a civilian launch (from a company like Sea Launch). Therefore I would suppose that it is indeed a US military launch. Probably some anti-ballistic missile test over the south pacific. Just because the spokesman at the local Navy office didn't have the answer doesn't mean that "the military" doesn't know what it is. If they really didn't know what it was, there'd be fighter jets scrambling all over the place and an announcement from the oval office to follow. Because it got a big "meh" from the military, I'd say it's ours...

Re:Obvious Explanation

[BobMcD]

Are we certain that this was a friendly missile, not e.g. a Chinese sub saying "look where we managed to drive this thing"?

China may be bold, but sub launching a missile within a few miles of major US cities and military installations is a quick way to nuclear annihilation.

What part of 'mutual annihilation' is unclear to you? If this WAS China, then they have just demonstrated the ability to launch an ICBM off our own shores, right under the nose of the Ronald Regan Carrier Group, and escape unharmed.

If they can do that, we'd be foolish to make any move against them whatsoever. We'd all be dead before we finished dispatching the orders.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[camperdave]

There's no need to launch an ICBM from off the US coast. It's called Inter-Continental for a reason

Re:Obvious Explanation

[c6gunner]

There's video?

Getting videos to play from the CBS site necessitates telling noscript to allow 50 other sites, for some reason. It's just not worth it.

Anyway, I was just mentioning one possible explanation - the main point was that yelling "OMG SECRET PROJECT!" is a wee bit premature.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[BobMcD]

There's no need to launch an ICBM from off the US coast. It's called Inter-Continental for a reason

What better way to demonstrate that you can hit any target you want? Not only does the missile have incredible range, but they can launch it from under the Golden Gate if they so chose.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[MarcQuadra]

I hope you're wrong. It seems to me that from 12 nautical miles out and farther, anyone could pop up and still be legally within 'international waters'.

If the Chinese popped-up 35 miles out and we did anything besides issue a friendly escort, we'd be picking a fight.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Yvanhoe]

Actually according to Wired, a jet plane from an unusual angle is the most likely explanation : http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11/mystery-missile-is-probably-a-jet/ It also explains why happening near a crowded area, we only have two videos.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Pharmboy]

China has enough nukes to make the west coast of the usa a mess, killing hundreds of thousands or even several million. The USA has enough nukes to make China the world's largest parking lot, and can activate enough others on standby to make it a solid glass parking lot. They have a few hundred, we have tens of thousands, including some megaton varieties which they don't have. They have enough to prevent nuclear war. We have enough to exterminate the entire humans race. There is a big difference in scale here.

China is already at war with us, but it is an economic war. They wouldn't fuck this up by using their military except to defend themselves, or invade Taiwan. And yes, they are already planning the invasion of Taiwan.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Cytotoxic]

I'm going to change my vote. I still stand by the "it ain't a threat" conclusion based on the military non-reaction. But having finally had an opportunity to re-watch the video, I'm now going with jet con-trail. Others made a better case for it, so I'll let their arguments speak for the jet version.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[malakai]

Better video link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GCgDKNEwyY

Actual explanation of the event:
http://www.examiner.com/weather-in-los-angeles/missile-launch-over-southern-california-explained

TL;DR: Was a jet airliner's contrail and the perfect upper-atmospheric moisture level + winds.

I'm sure what follows everything south of this post involves China, Iran, and Dr. Evil.....

Re:Obvious Explanation

[malakai]

Also, ContrailScience.com has really good examples of how and why contrails can look like missle launches at times. They have a backup page ( site is flooded ) running here:

http://uncinus.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/4/

Re:Obvious Explanation

[mirix]

SLBM has the whole benefit of short fly time, rendering ABM stuffs less useful, and non-fixed location, making retaliation more difficult.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[AlamedaStone]

You have to dial in directly.

And the password is "joshua"

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Braintrust]

Suddenly, Canadians ..thousands of them!

Re:Obvious Explanation

[AkkarAnadyr]

The USA has enough nukes to make China the world's largest parking lot, and can activate enough others on standby to make it a solid glass parking lot.

Here on the West Coast, we get enough dust from China already to mess with our Clean Air Act quotas, and pollute the Willamette River.

Seems a bit costly to go that route, not that it matters in these kinds of calculations.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[DrVomact]

China may be bold, but sub launching a missile within a few miles of major US cities and military installations is a quick way to nuclear annihilation.

...

Chinese sub simply popping up in US coastal waters would likely involve it being attacked. ...

That would presume competence on the part of the U.S. Government and military, would it not? Our attention is focused on backing out of Iraq with as little damage to ourselves as we can manage, fighting "terrorists" in Afghanistan and Pakistan, mostly with the work "phoned in" from some Predator base in Nevada, and maybe the occasional bunch of high CIA officers flying out to some remote base to give a group hug to a guy who swears he can deliver the straight dope on A.Q.'s number 2, and who is to prissy to be searched.

So, you were saying...?

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Magada]

I'm sure NORAD could have come up with that one, seeing as how they are supposed to be monitoring every cubic inch of US airspace all the time. What simpler than to look at the radar plots and say "oh, that's the US Airlines 77 inbound from Hawaii" or whatever. Did they do that? Nope. Why not? Why not the FAA? Certainly someone must have asked them by now?

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Sulphur]

Al Qaeda in the Baja Peninsula, to try to implicate China.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[PopeRatzo]

It is clearly a rather large rocket, clearly on a trajectory headed for at least space, perhaps orbit.

Wrong. It was Meg Whitman's head exploding when she realized she spent $150million and all she got was a lousy t-shirt.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Teancum]

The Navy may not be acknowledging what missile they were testing nor talk about the specific technologies involved in the test (which would legitimately be classified), but to completely deny that a missile test happened would be a violation of a number of laws and be endangering the general public. I presume that this missile has a range of more than 35 miles, which would imply that potentially an errant missile which didn't have an auto-destruct mechanism functioning properly could theoretically be able to crash into the homes of several million registered American voters.... something that would definitely make a bad day for everybody involved.

It isn't something sort of maybe would be acknowledged, it would most certainly be acknowledged by the military if they were involved and in fact a notice would be sent out to commercial shipping companies and others in both the sea lanes and the air space to simply "stay away" because an equipment test was being conducted.

The F-117 was largely tested in the Nevada Test Site and other areas that already are restricted airspace and have no civilian population centers even close by. By no civilians, I mean none, nada, zilch. People simply don't live in those areas as a matter of law. Those are huge areas where you can do an awful lot of testing and even drop bombs without having to tell anybody what you are doing, because the only people affected are military personnel. Those just have to receive simple orders to stay out during the test, no question asked.

Testing "top secret" equipment close to major civilian population areas and in the middle of a major shipping lane is not, to me, something that sounds appealing or certainly a place that you would perform a test without at least issuing a significant warning to that civilian population to stay away for the duration of the test.

If it was close to Vandenberg, perhaps there would be more of a reason to presume some more secrecy, but then again it would be obviously a military test too. That is the problem with this story, as it simply makes no sense for why nobody is acknowledging it.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Teancum]

There is a bright spot shown briefly on the video that appears to be the business end of the rocket still firing its engines. As to the length of time it takes to climb up, the video wasn't long enough to show the angular change and the camera being used certainly wasn't an extreme telephoto lens like is done sometimes for Shuttle launches and other spacecraft.

There still appears to be a rather substantial change in elevation, which is why it looks like a missile launch after a fashion. Then again, I've been on plenty of flights where the pilot seemed to be pushing the envelope on the climbing rate for that class of airplane, and at least one flight where I looked up to see the ground.... on a regular commercial airline flight. On that flight the pilot said he had to take some emergency evasive action to avoid a mid-air collision and pushed the stick down to avoid the other vehicle. Perhaps the contrail in such a situation would look like a missile launch, provided that the atmospheric conditions were just right to leave a view of a contrail? It would also have to be a pretty big aircraft too by the size of that contrail.

I also know that flying into LAX, the planes don't spend too much time flying low to the ground and drop rather quickly before landing.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[dbIII]

And yes, they are already planning the invasion of Taiwan.

Return to reality. They will own it in a few years without a shot being fired and they can wait.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Iron Condor]

Actual explanation of the event:

And what, exactly, makes you call this an "actual" explanation, given that it's composed of just as much thin air as all the other ones?

The video clearly shows a very bright spot at the top of the exhaust trail. Jet engines don't burn bright. They don't burn at all. They're dark. Unless this particular jet was on fire in a rather surprisingly controlled way.

Of course it is possible that sunlight just so happenes to glint off the underside of a plane that just so happenes to be polished the right way and that just so happenes to be oriented such that the "glint" remains "glinting" for many (15?) seconds at a time. Just as it's possible that the contrail of that same jet just so happens to resemble a rocket launch. Lots of things are possible.

But while it's possible that a jet plane might appear like a Polaris rocket, it is of course certain that a Polaris rocket appears like a Polaris rocket.

Quack, quack...

Re:Obvious Explanation

[atriusofbricia]

China may be bold, but sub launching a missile within a few miles of major US cities and military installations is a quick way to nuclear annihilation.

...

Chinese sub simply popping up in US coastal waters would likely involve it being attacked. ...

That would presume competence on the part of the U.S. Government and military, would it not? Our attention is focused on backing out of Iraq with as little damage to ourselves as we can manage, fighting "terrorists" in Afghanistan and Pakistan, mostly with the work "phoned in" from some Predator base in Nevada, and maybe the occasional bunch of high CIA officers flying out to some remote base to give a group hug to a guy who swears he can deliver the straight dope on A.Q.'s number 2, and who is to prissy to be searched.

So, you were saying...?

So.. never been in the military, huh? I'm sure the guys sitting in some FOB on top of some god forsaken Afghan mountain or such will be happy to know that it is mostly "phoned in". This was moderated Insightful? What insight was in this?

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Thing 1]

and maybe the occasional bunch of high CIA officers

I knew there was something strange about USA's drug laws...

Re:Obvious Explanation

[AmigaMMC]

If that's the case the Navy surely missed their chance to use a secluded location.

Sure it wasn't Voyager?

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Jon Abbott]

Here is the simplified version of the above post: http://www.endofworld.net/

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Minwee]

And they are all in clear violation of several International Treaties on Thermodynamics, which state that mass can neither be created nor destroyed.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Nefarious Wheel]

China is already at war with us, but it is an economic war. They wouldn't fuck this up by using their military except to defend themselves, or invade Taiwan. And yes, they are already planning the invasion of Taiwan

You can't say they aren't great capitalists, though. (Note the little "add to basket" icon). http://www.made-in-china.com/showroom/bjgreatwall/product-detailNnxEtvQUomHI/China-Long-March-Launch-Vehicle-Performances.html

Re:Obvious Explanation

[PhilHibbs]

Like this? http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8129635/IMG_0084.jpg

Re:Obvious Explanation

[tehcyder]

How do you know the precise details of the Chinese nuclear arsenal?

Re:Obvious Explanation

[dave420]

That whole part of the Pacific is part of an active missile test range. They launch missiles from there all the time.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Pharmboy]

You could have googled it pretty easy if you were actually interested in knowing. http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html which doesn't show mothballed warheads, just active.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[drakaan]

...up until the point that they open weapons tubes and make it clear that they're preparing to shoot something, yes. Even in international waters, that kind of act of aggression would necessitate a pretty immediate response.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[drakaan]

Don't think China, think North Korea.

If they lobbed an ICBM from NK *to* the US, we'd be firing something back in quick order. In terms of demonstrating the same capability without garnering that level of response, sneaking a sub to *our* coast and sending a missile all the way back to NK makes a pretty obvious point...I'm interested in hearing what the thing's destination was (a detail that has been absent from reports I've read so far).

China can launch spaceships into orbit; they have nothing to prove. North Korea wants people to pay attention to them, and has been less able to get people to pay attention than they would like.

As many have already said, if this was a US military launch, it would either have been done somewhere that people wouldn't have seen it, or there would have been an announcement and official press coverage (whether it was real coverage or smokescreen). It's not like it's a big secret from the public in the US that we have missiles and can launch them from subs, so it makes no sense to deny that we launched one in full view of millions of people.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[PseudonymousBraveguy]

I was about to mod this insightful, but when reviewing the video, I found that the bright spot is not visible from 0:15 to 0:20. As solid-fuel rockets usually don't stop to burn for a few seconds (and I don't see a stage-switch) the "sunlight glinting off the underside" theory suddenly gets a lot more plausible than the rocket theory.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[steelfood]

Maybe someone wants to see if Cuthulu really is on the moon.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

North Korea, on the other hand...

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Suki I]

The counter attack began at Niagara Falls.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Suki I]

North Koreans with a surplus Chinese sub!

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Suki I]

You left out the swamp gas.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

"China may be bold, but sub launching a missile within a few miles of major US cities and military installations is a quick way to nuclear annihilation."

No, the path is not immediately to nuclear annihilation - the direct path is to a lot of stained shorts in DC. It's unlikely that we had the resources needed on hand with hot weapons to do anything about this launch. And certainly not start a nuke war when we can't prove anything about who launched this.

It could have been North Korea. They seem to like showing off their military equipment in live fire displays to drive the bidding up. If so, it benefits both NK and the Peoples Republic of China.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Magada]

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/gallery?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=7776159&photo=3

Re:Obvious Explanation

[malakai]

For anyone still reading this, or for archving purposes....

It was US Airways flight 808
AWE808

Re:Obvious Explanation

[Magada]

I am supposed to believe this Bahneman fellow, who probably hasn't even ever seen a radar screen. I'm sure he's an upstanding citizen and all but... really now.

The FAA has declared... nothing. That silence is just contemptuous, whatever else you think about the issue.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[arivanov]

And how do you know it is shot at you?

That is the biggest problem with SLBMs. Until it has started curving towards its target you do not know where it is going. So for all practical purposes they can open all bloody tubes, shoot the whole lot and there is still NO casus belli to take them out. They can even surface and shoot them in plain sight in front of everyone. Until it is clear where they are going there is bugger all that can be done.

One of the times the world has been closest to full nuclear annihilation was when the French tested their SLBM without telling anyone off the shore of Ireland towards the open Atlantic. It caused both USA and Britain immediately followd by USSR to go on the highest state of alert right away (basically with the hand on the button). The rumour is that there were quite a few sets of very brown pants in both NORAD and its British equivalent by the time it became apparent that the SLBM is going only a few hundred miles out and not across the Atlantic towards NYC.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[drakaan]

I didn't say anything about knowing it's shot at you...

If an non-US sub is 30 miles off the coast of California, opens tubes and *prepares* to launch something, that's enough. You can't just wait to see which way the projectile is headed after they shoot it, you prevent the shot from ever being taken. That was part of my point.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[IndustrialComplex]

hope you're wrong. It seems to me that from 12 nautical miles out and farther, anyone could pop up and still be legally within 'international waters'.

If the Chinese popped-up 35 miles out and we did anything besides issue a friendly escort, we'd be picking a fight.

No. Submarines are a different beast when it comes to 'rules of engagement'.

First, the US doesn't recognize that 12 nautical mile international waters border. Ocean going vessels and other countries KNOW this, and they don't push the issue. (Remember, there is no concept of legal or illegal based on the actions of a sovereign nation, that's pretty much what it means to be sovereign. It's legal until someone physically tries to stop you. Think two guys on a desert island, they may reach an agreement, but with no higher power to enforce it, might may not make right, but might simply is.)

That said, submarines ARE often sunk. (often being relative to the number of times that any vessel is sunk due to conflict). I think it was Norway (or Sweden?) That was often in the practice of claiming to have sunk certain vessels.

It's a whole different ballgame and I think it's best summed up in the ending of the Hunt for Red October when the diplomats are talking and to paraphrase:

"Andrei, don't tell me you lost another sub?"

Submarines, especially boomers are highly offensive weapons. To pop one up in territorial waters of another country is not rattling sabres, it's swinging a sabre at someone else's neck all while saying: Don't worry, I'll stop swinging when I get close.

To actually fire a missile would bring us closer to WWIII than the cuban missle crisis.

Think about it this way. Cuba is 90 miles from Florida, and what kind of reaction did we have when we thought there were missles going THERE? (Not even fired, just being shipped.)

No contrast that to a submarine actually firing a missile only 35 miles away.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[IndustrialComplex]

And how do you know it is shot at you?

That is the biggest problem with SLBMs. Until it has started curving towards its target you do not know where it is going. So for all practical purposes they can open all bloody tubes, shoot the whole lot and there is still NO casus belli to take them out.

I'm sorry, but any sub opening it's tubes within 50 miles of the US coastline is going to blown out of the water as soon as we are capable of doing so. If we did that to China, and they responded with a nuclear tipped warhead (at the sub), I wouldn't think it to be much of an overreaction.

SSBM launching subs are DOOMSDAY weapons. This is not some dispute between guys with rifles over the NK border. You could even have a guy go nuts with an F-16 and drop a 500 lb bomb on another country and not get the same reaction as you would if a boomer opened its tubes off your coast.

If it actually fired a missile without warning, and within 100 miles of the coast? It would be met with military force as soon as anyone could get it there. Simply for the fact that you don't know where it is going to go.

Even when other countries test their IN COUNTRY ICBMS we announce to Russia, China, and a whole host of other militaries that we are going to be testing, where it's launching, and where it's going. We sometimes even have observers onhand! The reason why is that even for an ICBM, it is a HIGHLY scary procedure to another country as you literally only have minutes to decide if it is a peaceful missile, or one that is about to vaporize millions of people. And that's from thousands of miles away.

From 30 miles away? There is no warning, there is no time to decide if it is safe or not, it would send our Navy into Kill mode faster than you could blink.

Looking back at this story from today's news, it looks like it wasn't a missile at all, but just a weird contrail. This explains why we didn't have our sub killers scouring the are and the Pacific on high alert.

Re:Obvious Explanation

[MarcQuadra]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html

Looks like the Chinese are getting handy with these sabres, eh?

YEEEEEHAAAAW

[Pojut]

Slim Pickens was seen straddling the missle, waving his hat, and proclaiming "YEEEEEEHAWWWWW".

The War Room could not be reached for comment, as there was a fight going on at the time.

Re:YEEEEEHAAAAW

[LWATCDR]

Slim Pickens rode a bomb not a missile.

This message brought to you by the literal net.

Re:YEEEEEHAAAAW

[masterwit]

Major T. J. "King" Kong: Stay on the bomb run, boys! I'm gonna get them doors open if it harelips ever'body on Bear Creek!

(credit: IMDB)

True story but his comment is still pretty funny :)

Re:YEEEEEHAAAAW

[_Sprocket_]

Slim Pickens rode a bomb not a missile.

Even after the Cold War, the US Military maintains the ability to ride any weapons delivery system in to Armageddon.

Re:YEEEEEHAAAAW

[Volante3192]

They don't like it when non-military personel (like Steve Buscemi) ride weapons though.

Re:YEEEEEHAAAAW

[Anonymous Coward]

Slim Pickens rode a bomb not a missile.

This message brought to you by the literal net.

OK, so Gottfried was seen climbing into the missile, doing something Rule-34ish, and proclaiming "JAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!"

(This message brought to you by the literary net!)

Re:YEEEEEHAAAAW

[mangu]

Slim Pickens rode a bomb not a missile.

Yes, but the missile made an awesome WOOOSH sound.

Re:YEEEEEHAAAAW

[camperslo]

Slim Pickens rode a bomb not a missile.

Perhaps it was Ronald Reagan?

Re:YEEEEEHAAAAW

[_Sprocket_]

Well, of course not. The last thing the US needs is a weapons riding gap.

Re:YEEEEEHAAAAW

[Anonymous Coward]

If everybody gets so up in arms about mixing up a bomb with a missile in a joke about a movie then I expect that the real missile that precipitated the joke has them jumping around like a bunch of Kansas City faggots.

Re:YEEEEEHAAAAW

[JustOK]

hey, wait a moment. Kansas City, MO or Kansas City, KS?

Re:YEEEEEHAAAAW

[Anonymous Coward]

"The War Room could not be reached for comment, as there was a fight going on at the time."

By now they should know better than to serve coconut cream pie in the War Room.

Re:YEEEEEHAAAAW

[Noexit]

I believe it was a screaming.

Re:YEEEEEHAAAAW

[Anonymous Coward]

The War Room could not be reached for comment, as there was a fight going on at the time.

But...they can't fight in there, it's the War Room!

Re:YEEEEEHAAAAW

[necrogram]

It was the SGC firing at yet another goa'uld mothership, duh!

Re:YEEEEEHAAAAW

[Nadaka]

hey... Dont ask, dont tell.

Re:YEEEEEHAAAAW

[node 3]

Slim Pickens rode a bomb not a missile.

Which, once released, became a missile. QED.

Re:YEEEEEHAAAAW

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently Kansas City, FG.

Re:YEEEEEHAAAAW

[AlamedaStone]

a weapons riding gap.

Comfort-fit, wrinkle free ballistic saddle in an array of autumn colors?

There's a Gap for that.

Re:YEEEEEHAAAAW

[AlamedaStone]

It was the SGC firing at yet another goa'uld mothership, duh!

Indeed.

Re:YEEEEEHAAAAW

[waferhead]

Slim Pickens was simply playing a defense contractor in a tech support ride.

You do what you have to do to get the job done. >:)

Re:YEEEEEHAAAAW

[Anonymous Coward]

Slim Pickens rode a bomb not a missile.

That's right, it was the ambiguously gay duo, Ace and Gary, who rode the missile in episode 1...
 

Re:YEEEEEHAAAAW

[LWATCDR]

No a missile is.
a. a weapon that has both guidance and propulsion.
or
b. Any thrown weapon. That would include the use of bow or sling.

In this specific case the bomb was dropped not thrown so it was till not a missile.

Now had it been released using a LABS maneuver you might possible call it a missile but the bomb in this case was dropped.
So no you fail in your attempt to join the literal net.
I suggest you work harder and you may get to the level of humorless nitpicking.

Drug Cartels

[jimbobborg]

Will do anything to cross the border. I wonder how much pot was in that thing?

Re:Drug Cartels

[JustOK]

Cheech and Chong in SPAAAAAAACE!, man. Hal's not here.

Re:Drug Cartels

[Anonymous Coward]

not enough

Re:Drug Cartels

[ByOhTek]

Are you nuts, that's too expensive for the test flight. It's just a family of six for the first go-round.

Re:Drug Cartels

[NotBornYesterday]

Well, judging by the smoke, plenty.

Hmmm ....

[gstoddart]

So, the two likely scenarios would be: 1) The US test firing something, but nobody knows who or what just yet because it is being kept secret. 2) Someone else firing off missiles off the coast of the US to demonstrate a point.

I consider 1) likely, and 2) just downright scary.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Monkeedude1212]

The end of the article says that some Ex Ambassador says that it MIGHT be a demonstration to China that US Subs can launch intercontinental missiles - since Obama is touring over there right now.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

2) is even more scary if true because there's no evidence that the US military responded as it is supposed to when that kind of event happened.

In that case you'd have to wonder just exactly what the state of US second strike capability is in.

Re:Hmmm ....

[mark-t]

There's a rather huge problem with #1... (not that it doesn't make it any less likely, however).

The launch would inevitably be highly visible to anybody looking in that general direction, and although keeping it secret might very well keep the identity of the originator secret, it's not going to hide the fact that it happened, and such deliberate concealment about its origin is only liable to foster fear and anxiety about it. Was it also part of their agenda to create fuel for what could turn into a public panic if the origin of it is not discovered soon?

Re:Hmmm ....

[The Pirou]

'Test' firing and attempting to keep a secret immediately off the coast of LA don't jive. If they were attempting to TRULY keep it a secret they would've performed tests elsewhere. Sabre rattling, or something else, it wasn't your first scenario.

Re:Hmmm ....

[swanzilla]

The end of the article says that some Ex Ambassador says that it MIGHT be a demonstration to China that US Subs can launch intercontinental missiles - since Obama is touring over there right now.

Indonesia, China. Same thing.

Re:Hmmm ....

[ciscoeng]

#1.

  This wasn't a Chinese sub sitting off the coast of SF. Our military would've dropped a collective deuce. This is missile-waving to get someone's attention.

Re:Hmmm ....

[jonbryce]

Obama is in India at the moment. David Cameron (prime minister of Britain) is in China.

Re:Hmmm ....

[LWATCDR]

Has anyone looked at the NOTAMS for that day?
If it was a government launch then a NOTAM must have been filed to clear the air space.
They would not risk an accident that would take out an airliner full of people.

I tried to look but found nothing listed.
As to a demonstration that the US can launch ballistic missiles from a sub... Well yea that has been proven for about the last 50 years. And you can bet your bottom dollar that you do not just pop off long range missile with out telling Russia and China that you are going to do it!
That could be bad...
BTW Subs do not launch intercontinental ballistic missiles "ICBMs". They launch Sub launched ballistic missiles "SLBMs"

At this point the fact that nobody is saying anything and it is getting so little press really scares the daylights out of me.
 

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

3) CIA building case for going to war with suspect foreign power.

Re:Hmmm ....

[AnonymousClown]

3) New Navy seamen ordered to get the Captain his mid-day meal and presses the "Lunch" button.

Re:Hmmm ....

[gstoddart]

'Test' firing and attempting to keep a secret immediately off the coast of LA don't jive.

OK, Pedantry first ... it's jibe. ;-)

Sorry, I intended to include intentional saber rattling as part of scenario 1 -- they didn't shoot at anything, so it was more about being seen with the capability.

The fact that it was on the news and fairly visible tells me that someone wasn't trying to really keep it a secret -- merely keeping the who did it secret.

But, yes, I should have articulated that better.

Re:Hmmm ....

[dAzED1]

I can promise you the anti-missle systems are in place...and unless someone purposefully turned them off, they'd have responded in /some/ way, even if unsuccessfully. That they didn't, means this was a known event.

Re:Hmmm ....

[martas]

accident? just sayin', screw-ups happen. maybe somebody spilled coffee on a sub's weapons control console.

Re:Hmmm ....

[loafula]

'Cept if it was a demonstration to China, why do it 35 mi off the coast of LA? It seems unlikely to be seen from China there.

Re:Hmmm ....

[jonbryce]

I guess you think India and Indonesia are the same thing as well.

Re:Hmmm ....

[sirrunsalot]

Agreed, but hard to see how it's even sabre rattling. I thought we were marginally above such displays of hubris, if only because it's about as revolutionary as walking out into a field and firing a canon. The first submarine-launched ballistic missile was the Polaris A1 in 1960 with a range of 1000 nmi. The cat is out of the bag.

Re:Hmmm ....

[FudRucker]

Chinonesia?

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Lunch? I thought you said "launch"!

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they manned by properly-trained crews that take their jobs seriously or have they been overcome with complacency?

Do they still keep a bomber crew with sprinting distance of each aircraft at all times?

Re:Hmmm ....

[Wonko the Sane]

maybe somebody spilled coffee on a sub's weapons control console.

SLBM launches don't work like that.

It would make just as much sense for you to spill coffee on your keyboard and accidentally install Windows Vista.

Re:Hmmm ....

[AdamsGuitar]

Unless, of course, the point of the launch was to test some kind of covert launching mechanism that simply didn't work.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Way too positive. What's the point in demonstrating to China that you still have some missile if you also still have a large nuclear arsenal that is ready to be delivered any time? Its not like China is going to be impressed because of some additional sub-launched missile.

If anything, this is China or some one else showing that they now got subs that can come close the the US coast unnoticed... or a test / accidental firing by the US military.

Re:Hmmm ....

[gstoddart]

If it was a government launch then a NOTAM must have been filed to clear the air space.

Yeah, because no shady parts of the government exist who don't do things in public. I mean, do the CIA and NSA really admit to anything? What's to say some agency with a fancy radar that can say there's nothing to hit didn't sidestep the whole process?

And you can bet your bottom dollar that you do not just pop off long range missile with out telling Russia and China that you are going to do it!

Hasn't China done that exact thing?

BTW Subs do not launch intercontinental ballistic missiles "ICBMs". They launch Sub launched ballistic missiles "SLBMs"

Are all SLBM's implicitly intercontinental? You make a good point, but clearly you know more about this than most of us. I have no idea if most sub-launched missiles have that kind of range or not.

At this point the fact that nobody is saying anything and it is getting so little press really scares the daylights out of me.

Or, have people gotten used to not being told what's happening and moved onto other things? Maybe people have simply stopped asking when they get told to stop asking or the government denies something?

Re:Hmmm ....

[martas]

I've done that. Why else would I have Vista on my machine?

Re:Hmmm ....

[jd]

It wasn't that long ago since a silo's missiles were disabled due to a hardware failure at a single point. Single points of failure are Bad and suggest a poor design. If you've one poor design element, you may have others (such as a lack of failsafes). The odds of a sub or other launch site not having failsafes is low, but clearly not impossible given the design failures demonstrated in the silo incident. If you had a device that (a) could launch a missile, (b) wasn't fault-tolerant, and (c) had no failsafes, and that device then generated a suitable fault, you could see an accidental launch. The missile would not be primed and probably not targeted, but it would fire.

This sequence of events is extremely unlikely. But, then, so is a missile silo with no redundancy. For that matter, so is a stealth submarine beaching itself in Scotland, and that has happened too. Unlikely things happen, given enough time and enough opportunity. Only the actually impossible cannot happen.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Most likely of all, someone in the US Navy screwed up.

The display of force argument is stupid. "To show that we can do it" ? Come on, we've had the capability for decades.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

3) Spy satellite launch in retrograde orbit.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Bombcar]

As far as I can see, it's really close to being in the W-290 WARNING area; perhaps the MOA was hot?

Re:Hmmm ....

[gstoddart]

Most likely of all, someone in the US Navy screwed up.

Are you implying someone accidentally launched something like this? Really?

I should think that there would be procedures in place so that some guy doesn't lean on the launch button or maliciously launch without authorization. Several at least.

God, please tell me that it's impossible for the Navy to just sorta go "whoops" and launch something like this. This was done by someone with a plan and authorization, or something is seriously wrong.

Re:Hmmm ....

[khallow]

Unless, of course, the point of the launch was to test some kind of covert launching mechanism that simply didn't work.

If that were the case, then they probably wouldn't launch it within sight of Los Angeles. There's a limit to how covert a rocket launch can be, especially for a missile as large as this one appears to be.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Wonko the Sane]

Trident missiles are not like Estes model rockets. Getting one to the point where a launch is even possible isn't something that happens accidentally and it's not plausible that the US Navy would be conducting the kind of exercises where an accidental launch was even possible in that part of the ocean without taking precautions like NOATMs

Re:Hmmm ....

[idontgno]

Indochina?

And don't try to tell me they're different. We know better.

Re:Hmmm ....

[dragonhunter21]

"Covert launching mechanism"

Unless we're talking MGS-style railguns or somesuch, that doesn't work. Modern rockets- ICBMs included- aren't designed to slide gently out of the atmosphere so much as punch a giant rocket-shaped hole in it.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> So, the two likely scenarios would be: 1) The US test firing something, but nobody knows who or what just yet because it is being kept secret. 2) Someone else firing off missiles off the coast of the US to demonstrate a point.

3) Somebody or something messed up and an automated or stray missile was launched. 4) Someone else firing off missiles off the US coast to determine US detection and response capabilities, either for detection of the missile launch or for detection of whatever launched it. (An uber-quiet submarine, perhaps.)

Re:Hmmm ....

[Wonko the Sane]

God, please tell me that it's impossible for the Navy to just sorta go "whoops" and launch something like this. This was done by someone with a plan and authorization, or something is seriously wrong.

A person could not accidentally launch a Trident missile bu bumping into the launch button any more than a NASA janitor could bump into something and accidentally launch the Space Shuttle.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

They're filming Lost Continent 2. Rocket rooking very good.

You know, I always said I'd never die in an airplane, but right now I'm feeling very good about it.

Joe, Tailgunner Joe.

Re:Hmmm ....

[dragonhunter21]

This guy's got a point. If China had done it, everybody at the pentagon would have shat themselves so hard you could smell it from California.

Re:Hmmm ....

[andyring]

Honestly - my money is on No. 2. When we make China upset, it's not uncommon for them to talk about how they could take out LA or other spots on our West Coast. And right now, China is PISSED at us for our ridiculous idea of creating $600B out of thin air, as it will undoubtedly further destabilize the world's economic situation. So, they wait until our President is gone and then lob a big missile right off our coast.

Yes, very scary indeed. I'm glad I live in middle-of-nowhere Nebraska.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

The end of the article says that some Ex Ambassador says that it MIGHT be a demonstration to China that US Subs can launch intercontinental missiles

If China didn't already know that then their intelligence network needs some serious help.

Re:Hmmm ....

[paiute]

The end of the article says that some Ex Ambassador says that it MIGHT be a demonstration to China that US Subs can launch intercontinental missiles - since Obama is touring over there right now.

That ability hasn't been a secret since the Nixon administration.

Re:Hmmm ....

[icebike]

You are correct about the value to an adversary about a demonstration launch from US waters.

But its a risky move to engage in this kind of stunt because the Russians might think it was a surprise attack of some kind.

Especially if they pick up the red phone (do they still have that?) and ask what the hell is going on and receive only unbelievable denials.

Russia and the US announce to each other ALL launches well in advance.

Countries having the capability of underwater launch include China, Russia, Britain, US, and maybe Iran and India using ex soviet era subs. Maybe a couple others.

The only one of these that could launch without fear of triggering a reprisal by Russia: Russia.

But given the apparent lack of any mad scramble by the Military, you can be fairly sure they knew in advance about this. If the US military was caught flat footed, Obama would already be on his way back, and heads would already be rolling.

There is also the distinct possibility its just more Security Theater to justify what ever is next.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear USA,

    Have you seen our new stealth subs ? Your lack of attention seems to indicate not, here, we will send up a flare !
    Can you see us now ? We want to renegotiate our trade agreements.

Have a nice day,
China

Re:Hmmm ....

[AdamsGuitar]

While my original comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I wouldn't suppose to know *what* mechanism might be employed.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Wonko the Sane]

The possibility of an SSBN sneaking up on the American coast was never discounted. This type of attack has always been deterred by US second strike capability.

Re:Hmmm ....

[KatchooNJ]

A "Far Out Space Nuts" reference. I wonder if anyone other than myself got that one. lol

Re:Hmmm ....

[gstoddart]

A person could not accidentally launch a Trident missile bu bumping into the launch button any more than a NASA janitor could bump into something and accidentally launch the Space Shuttle.

That's what I want to believe, and that the notion of an "accidental" launch is utter rubbish.

However, with no first hand knowledge of fire control systems, I'm mostly just hoping that's the case. ;-)

I'm pretty sure that this was a planned event by a US branch of the armed forces. If it aint them, then someone is playing a very dangerous game indeed.

Re:Hmmm ....

[icebike]

Your promise seems hollow. Who the hell are you anyway?

Re:Hmmm ....

[AhabTheArab]

BTW Subs do not launch intercontinental ballistic missiles "ICBMs". They launch Sub launched ballistic missiles "SLBMs"

They do launch ICBMs. Currently our only SLBM in service (UGM-133) also meets the criteria for an ICBM since its range is 11000km, easily above the 5500km requirement to make it an ICBM. In fact, I'm pretty sure all SLBMs are also ICBMs (with the exclusion of cruise missiles such as the Tomahawk, for example)

Re:Hmmm ....

[Rich0]

I'm not sure what the point of that is. Does anybody on the planet really doubt that the US has ICBMs? If everybody thinks you can turn any desert on the planet to glass, what is the point of test launches except perhaps to demonstrate that maybe your weapons don't work. What happens if you launch it and miss? In the absence of data everybody fears you, so why risk that by providing evidence one way or the other?

It seems more likely that they were testing some new launch system or something like that. Doing it merely as a demonstration of power seems unlikely.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Shakrai]

Are all SLBM's implicitly intercontinental?

Modern ones are. Trident II has a quoted range of 7,000 miles. The French M51 has a quoted range of 6,200 miles.

The original SLBM's would be more properly described as medium range ballistic missiles (MRBM) or intermediate range ballistic missiles (IRBM). Polaris I had a quoted range of 1,000 miles, making it a MRBM. The A3 version of Polaris had a quoted range of 3,000 miles, making it a IRBM. There is some overlap between these terms and the range figures for them are somewhat arbitrary. The A2 version of Polaris could be classified either way.

Re:Hmmm ....

[DominatorDan]

Hank: So are you Chinese or Japanese? Minh: No, we are Laotian. Bill: The ocean? What ocean? Kahn: From Laos, stupid! It's a landlocked country in South East Asia between Vietnam and Thailand, population approximately 4.7 million!

Re:Hmmm ....

[NatasRevol]

I want to know one thing.

Where did it land?

Re:Hmmm ....

[mangu]

it MIGHT be a demonstration to China that US Subs can launch intercontinental missiles

Considering that the US first launched an ICBM from a sub in 1960, this demonstration seems a bit late by now.

What next, will the US demonstrate that cars can be made with tail fins?

Re:Hmmm ....

[GameMaster]

Because it's a demonstration to the Chinese military, not the Chinese people. Unlike the people, the Chinese military has high powered radar system and satellites that can, probably, see ICBM launches all over the world. You, specifically, wouldn't want to launch the missile closer to them because you wouldn't want them to confuse it with a real attack.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Rich0]

Uh, there are probably about 25 steps involved in launching an SLBM. Step one would be maintaining a shallow depth, which ballistic missile subs almost never do otherwise except for maybe a brief stop to get instructions. Somewhere in the series of steps probably includes opening the hatch as well.

I'm sure the launch was deliberate. Now, whether it was planned is a separate matter. Maybe some fault on a missile called for firing it to get rid of it, but that seems unlikely to me. Firing ICBMs is a VERY sensitive matter (if not coordinated with other major powers it certainly would trigger a serious alert and move towards nuclear readiness - not something ANYBODY wants to happen). So, I doubt somebody would write a submarine procedure manual that included firing ballistic missiles except under order. Besides, can you imagine the trouble involved in tracking down the warheads if the thing was armed (which you'd have to assume if it were a standard procedure).

This was almost certainly a test launch. Or, maybe it was smaller than it looked (I didn't see the video so I don't know if it really was an ICBM).

Re:Hmmm ....

[mujadaddy]

Point of pedantry: the "B" stands for "Ballistic", which implies targeting adjustments are completed by descent, so something like a Tomahawk isn't any kind of ballistic missile.

Re:Hmmm ....

[jesseck]

But why? The world already knows we can launch ICBMs from submarines.

Re:Hmmm ....

[interkin3tic]

2) Someone else firing off missiles off the coast of the US to demonstrate a point.

I consider 1) likely, and 2) just downright scary.

Really uber scary actually. Not only would such a secret organization powerful and crafty enough to smuggle a missile into the US to launch it, but they'd be crazy enough to sneak a missile into the US. I mean, I'd be intimidated enough by just launching an empty missile at the US, since that's what I'd be really worried about. Launching a missile -from- the US? Why would you even do that? To cause Russia to launch their nukes and cause mutually assured destruction? That wouldn't be good for anyone.

... except space aliens and people who -really- are liking fallout new vegas.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you think India and Indonesia are the same thing as well.

Clever retort. Except at the time you posted, Obama was in Indonesia (but having to cut his trip short due to volcanic ash).

Oops!

Re:Hmmm ....

[KarrdeSW]

If anything, this is China or some one else showing that they now got subs that can come close the the US coast unnoticed... or a test / accidental firing by the US military.

I somehow doubt that any country would demonstrate some sort of brand new underwater stealth technology by performing the one action that is guaranteed to give away your exact position (launching a missile).

A 'hostile' sub 35 miles away from US Coast wouldn't be met with a slap on the knee and a response of "you totally got us!". It would be destroyed with impunity. Subs are expensive, you don't risk losing them on a mission that amounts to showing off.

It's most definitely a US missile of some sort.

Re:Hmmm ....

[tibman]

I just snorted/spit coffee onto my keyboard, should i worry?

Re:Hmmm ....

[Rockoon]

Suppose this was a test of failsafes that, well, failed.....

Re:Hmmm ....

[GeekZilla]

"Obama would already be on his way back"

Uh...in other news, he is.

Re:Hmmm ....

[AhabTheArab]

I wasn't quite aware of that distinction, thanks for the tip.

Re:Hmmm ....

[cayenne8]

"Are they manned by properly-trained crews that take their jobs seriously or have they been overcome with complacency?

Do they still keep a bomber crew with sprinting distance of each aircraft at all times?"

Has somebody been fscking with the WOPR again???

Re:Hmmm ....

[MarcQuadra]

Bingo!

There's no reason for us to demonstrate our well-known SLBM capabilities to our own country's most populated county. I think it's highly likely that this is one of our 'peer nations' showing-off that we're entirely 'within range'.

Trust me, they saw this at Beale, where they have a huge radar system designed to see incoming ICBMs. If this wasn't an exercise or a test launch (both of which would have likely happened a little more out of the way), you won't hear much more about it. Neither the military nor the media would tell Americans if China, Russia, or India was playing around right off our beaches, the reality that we could all easily become iridescent chalky dust at the drop of a hat distracts from the main objectives: Fighting bad guys with AK-47s to secure cheap energy, and buying stuff on credit.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Shakrai]

The possibility of an SSBN sneaking up on the American coast was never discounted.

Wonko, you were (are?) a bubblehead, right? It's my understanding that the Chinese are at least a generation or two behind us in terms of submarine technology. Even if they've received assistance from the Russians it would seem unlikely that they could construct an SSBN that could travel all the way across the Pacific without being tracked by the US Navy. If they did manage such a feat then I certainly hope that heads are rolling at Pearl Harbor and the Pentagon....

It also seems unlikely that the Chinese would be insane enough to engage in brinkmanship with nuclear capable missiles 30 miles off our coast. It's a dangerous enough game when the launches are announced ahead of time and conducted at established ranges. Doing it 30 miles off the coast of a nuclear armed state with earning warning systems and second strike capability? That's just crazy.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

They knew we could. Now they know we can. As in, we can continue to do so.

Re:Hmmm ....

[brainboyz]

Capability degrades as time passes.

Re:Hmmm ....

[theverylastperson]

Don't be silly, nothing in DC can over power the stench of congress.

Re:Hmmm ....

[AhabTheArab]

Countries having the capability of underwater launch include China, Russia, Britain, US, and maybe Iran and India using ex soviet era subs. Maybe a couple others.

France does. India is developing their own sub/missile which should be ready shortly (according to wikipedia). It wouldn't surprise me if Isreal has this capability as well. The one thing that struck me as somewhat odd when reading the wikipedia page on SLBMs was this: The five countries that are known to have SLBM capability are the five permanent members of the UN security council. India, the only other nation listed on that page, is indicated to be developing SLBMs. The other day, wasn't Obama advocating the inclusion of India as a permanent member of the security council? Something seems a little fishy to me.

Re:Hmmm ....

[AhabTheArab]

If anything, this is China or some one else showing that they now got subs that can come close the the US coast unnoticed... or a test / accidental firing by the US military.

I somehow doubt that any country would demonstrate some sort of brand new underwater stealth technology by performing the one action that is guaranteed to give away your exact position (launching a missile).

A 'hostile' sub 35 miles away from US Coast wouldn't be met with a slap on the knee and a response of "you totally got us!". It would be destroyed with impunity. Subs are expensive, you don't risk losing them on a mission that amounts to showing off.

It's most definitely a US missile of some sort.

Cool theory, except for the part where they evidently weren't caught. So yes, maybe their stealth sub is THAT GOOD that they can fire a missle a few miles off our coast and get away with it.

Re:Hmmm ....

[falsified]

It's possible, but it seems kind of weird. ICBMs aren't exactly new. Launching them from a sub might be new, but I'm not sure what tactical advantage that would provide. I guess it'd be harder to destroy a mobile, underground ICBM launchpad?

Re:Hmmm ....

[John Hasler]

> An uber-quiet submarine, perhaps.

Because it would make so much sense for someone who had such a submarine to advertise that fact.

Re:Hmmm ....

[jgagnon]

What's the difference? Don't they all wear feathers in their hair and dance around fires?

(Surely I jest)

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

3) New Navy seamen ordered to get the Captain his mid-day meal and presses the "Lunch" button.

Haha! Seamen!

Re:Hmmm ....

[n9hmg]

'Test' firing and attempting to keep a secret immediately off the coast of LA don't jive

You're right. They boogie. The difference is subtle. Very acute observation.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Americano]

You must be right - I'm sure a single person can easily launch an SLBM by accident. In fact, just the other day, I dropped a fork on the kitchen floor, and most of Spain was destroyed in a nuclear holocaust the likes of which the world has never seen.

Your "the US Navy is staffed with nothing but bumbling idiots who can't find their ass with both hands and a flashlight" argument is more stupid than the "display of force" argument ever thought of being.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Lurching]

In the days of the Apollo program someone doing a "sneak-circuit" analysis of the Saturn V launch system found a series of ground faults that, taken together, could have resulted in a Saturn V launch from a janitor accidentally bumping the "go" button while cleaning. This would have even by-passed the launch-key protection. Modern launch systems are designed knowing this story.

Re:Hmmm ....

[icebike]

Quote Story you linked to:

Administration officials said late Tuesday the president's already-quick visit will be shortened by two hours, forcing cancellation of a wreath-laying ceremony on Wednesday and causing other tweaks to the schedule.

Two hours due to volcanic ash is not a mad dash in panic mode.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Americano]

I'd suggest that if it's somebody "testing our capabilities," they're about to have most of the Third and perhaps elements of the Seventh Fleet (together, the bulk of the Pacific Fleet) crashing their party.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Sylak]

Hank: So are you Chinese or Japanese?

Re:Hmmm ....

[Wonko the Sane]

Wonko, you were (are?) a bubblehead, right?

USS Hartford May 2000 - February 2006

It's my understanding that the Chinese are at least a generation or two behind us in terms of submarine technology. Even if they've received assistance from the Russians it would seem unlikely that they could construct an SSBN that could travel all the way across the Pacific without being tracked by the US Navy. If they did manage such a feat then I certainly hope that heads are rolling at Pearl Harbor and the Pentagon....

You don't understand how big the Pacific ocean is.

The only way that you stop an SSBN is to maintain a large fast attack fleet and track each and every one of them as they leave port and follow them until the return.

Re:Hmmm ....

[demonlapin]

You don't "catch" your own subs.

Re:Hmmm ....

[TheCarp]

That or whoever did the planning had last visited LA back in the 90s and figured that nobody could see that far out anyway.

Re:Hmmm ....

[icebike]

India would not demo off our coasts.

The advocating inclusion of India in the security council was strictly for in-country (india) consumption. Don't expect any follow thru.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Kagura]

Seriously? You've never heard of submarine-launched ballistic missiles? They're a VERY important part of our strategic nuclear defense. Even if an adversary kills the entire civilian and military leadership and destroys all of our nuclear silos in a surprise "first strike", we have SLBM submarines patrolling the oceans in secret locations that can launch a devastating "second strike". This deters adversaries from trying to launch a "first strike" when they think they have the upper hand.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

It has to be a display of military might. It's us showing off... to Iran, N. Korea, China... and anyone else who needs reminding of our capabilities during our shit fucked economical depression.

Re:Hmmm ....

[geekoid]

If it was someone else, we would know.

Re:Hmmm ....

[demonlapin]

Launching them from a sub might be new

It's not.

I guess it'd be harder to destroy a mobile, underground ICBM launchpad?

Not to mention that you don't know where it is at any given time.

Re:Hmmm ....

[AhabTheArab]

I was a little unclear I guess. I was making the point that it indeed could have been "China or some one else showing that they now got subs that can come close the the US coast unnoticed" as posited by the GP.

Re:Hmmm ....

[tibit]

It all begins in target classification. If the anti-missile system was programmed to ignore outbound targets launched at close range, then you'd get exactly what we saw.

Re:Hmmm ....

[geekoid]

Yes is does jive. There is a whole lot of missile tech. developed in that area, and they have a lot of technology for monitoring and studying missile launches.

I'm not saying it's not saber rattling, just that their are plenty of logical reasons to do it. It's not like you can launch one from international waters.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what I want to believe, and that the notion of an "accidental" launch is utter rubbish.

"Accidental" doesn't imply that someone hit the switch with their elbow while playing ping-pong in the control room. The military screws up all the time, for all manner of reasons.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Thud457]

It also seems unlikely that the Chinese would be insane enough to engage in brinkmanship with nuclear capable missiles 30 miles off our coast. It's a dangerous enough game when the launches are announced ahead of time and conducted at established ranges. Doing it 30 miles off the coast of a nuclear armed state with earning warning systems and second strike capability? That's just crazy.

Awwwww crap, so it's DPRK then ?

Re:Hmmm ....

[hey!]

Hmm. When the Soviets paraded their military hardware in Red Square, it wasn't as if we didn't know they had it. But we *did* pay attention.

If you think about it, the most strategically efficient form of sabre rattling is, in effect, saying "look at me rattling my sabre." It reminds the other guys to be worried about your sabre without disclosing anything they hadn't known before.

Having lived through much of the Cold War, the notion of us rattling our sabres then *denying we did any such thing* is entirely plausible. It used to go like this (sometimes with the roles reversed).

USA: We are for peace, diplomacy [sabre rattles], and economic cooperation ...

Soviets: Hold it! America just rattled their sabre! Hey, non-aligned nations, America is war mongering!

USA (smirking): How offensive! Did you hear that non-aligned nations? The Soviets are trying to poison the atmosphere of peaceful cooperation we have built here. [sabre rattles]

Soviets: Did you here that? They did it again!

USA: Incorrigible, aren't they?

When you use a display of military might for diplomatic purposes, the more you soft pedal it the more effective the threat. If you're *explicit* about it, the other side *has* to demonstrate to the world that it's not intimidated.

Now personally, I see three possibilities, but I'm not prepared to choose between them:

(1) Launch by US, screw-up in public relations.
(2) Launch by US, deliberate sabre rattling.
(3) Launch by some other country [note 1] to demonstrate to us we can't track their subs. If they never own up to it, that's pratically sabre rattling. Everyone will think it was one of ours, but *we* know damn well it wasn't.

note 1: In Boston, the name of this country would rhyme with "minor".

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

You're assuming that the response they got on the red phone is the same thing that they're saying to the media.

In all reality, our military knows that happened, and chances are that other major militaries know what happened as well.

If you think you can accurately analyze what has occurred based on what was released to the media, you're an idiot.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Hyppy]

Your faith in anti-missile systems is commendable, but entirely misplaced.

Re:Hmmm ....

[hairyfeet]

Not to mention it would make absolutely NO sense to fire off the coast of CA and risk a panic when we already have test ranges in the Pacific just for such tests. I'm starting to wonder if this wasn't a fuckup, as that is the ONLY reason why I could think they would launch something that close. Maybe they had a leak and had to get the bird off the ship? Because that is the only reason why I can see the Navy or other branch of the Armed Forces not going through established procedures and then trying to claim it wasn't them.

It isn't like the Navy would want to broadcast "Yesterday Sgt Gomer found PFC Pile had accidentally started a serious breach of safety and security, causing us to launch the bird to keep the dumbass from blowing the whole ship up. We apologize for any scares and can assure you Pile is now manning a station in the Arctic circle. Have a nice day." Because the only other reason I can think of is that it wasn't the USA, which is a scary thought. Hey, didn't we bust some drug dealers awhile back for having an ex Soviet sub? while I doubt China or Russia would be that stupid, there are plenty of others with subs not to mention Soviet hardware on the market. It would be pretty damned scary if some "off the books" Boomer or Alpha just popped up and said hi, and the US sure as hell wouldn't admit if that were the case.

Either way this one is a head scratcher, as it would make no sense for the USA to launch it on purpose given the 50 year+ history of doing these types of tests at our Pacific ranges. Hell have we EVER done a test launch off our own coast before? Because I certainly don't remember ever hearing of one.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Vectormatic]

any sat launch would turn away from land (for various safety reasons), meaning that a launch from the california coast would launch counter to the earths rotation, which means it would need way more energy then when launching in the opposite direction.

furthermore, i doubt most SLBMs have the capability to get any meaningfull mass into orbit. In fact, orbital nukes are outlawed in various treaties, so it would be illegal for a SLBM to be able to orbit anything.

Re:Hmmm ....

[jackbird]

Not fishy. The crieterion for permanent member status on the UN security council is "can start a global nuclear war if so desires." This is by design, and a hell of a good idea. Would you want such an entity NOT to be included in security matters in the UN's purview?

Re:Hmmm ....

[Hatta]

Why would you want to launch an ICBM from a submarine? The benefit of a submarine is that you can take it in close to the enemy and they can't find you. But the whole point of an ICBM is that it's intercontinental. You can launch them from disguised missile platforms in the middle of Wyoming and it's exactly as effective.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Vectormatic]

i am missing that too, if this was anywhere near the size implied, several radar tracking stations would have had this thing on their screens, including immediate trajectory calculations on where it is going, and when it would hit.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Wonko the Sane]

SLBMS are intercontinental. The whole point of an SSBN is that it can be anywhere in the ocean and still hit you.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Teancum]

35 miles out to sea is in international waters..... shy of declaring war the U.S. Navy isn't going to destroy anything with impunity, but you will see a few naval officers get demoted real fast for failing to detect that vessel if it wasn't associated with the Navy.

Launching a sub-based missile off the coast of California, if it was from another country, would be the equivalent between military powers as the "Ha,Ha" of Nelson Muntz.

While I would say that the probable reaction of the U.S. Navy would be to ignore the incident and leave it to the politicians to determine what to do next, if anything, there isn't any reason for a country to expect a neutral reaction out of the U.S. Navy, and firing such a missile that close to a major population center would certainly be considered an act of war.

There are several major military bases in the immediate area (especially at the port of Los Angeles /Long Beach, and at San Diego as well as Vandenberg AFB to the north and even a couple USMC bases in the area), so a lack of a response is due to political concerns and not military capability. It also makes it seem very likely that it was the U.S. military that was involved somehow with this launch. If it was a private launch of some kind, there would be a requirement to file paperwork with the FAA where the identity of the people doing the launch would be very well known. Considering the size of this vehicle, it isn't something you would make in your garage over a weekend and try to sneak a launch in saying "to heck with the gov'ment". Besides, the BATF and other federal agencies keep very close tabs on private launcher groups including commercial rocket builders and amateur rocketry groups too.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

It was to be announced at the party congress on Monday. You know how the premier loves surprises.

Re:Hmmm ....

[EraserMouseMan]

The Pentagon does have a clue. They know exactly where it was fired from and the whole history of the trajectory. They have many sensors that just stare at the earth from space watching for these launches.

Re:Hmmm ....

[EraserMouseMan]

They predict the trajectory of the missile. If it's not aimed at US soil or any of our forward deployed installations we don't shoot it down. It's not like our missile shield is supposed to shoot down anything and everything that flies in the sky.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Shakrai]

China only has three SSBNs unless they've somehow managed to construct and deploy more of them in secret. In that case I'd say the guys at NRO and DIA need a swift kick in the ass. Surely we have the assets to track three SSBNs, particularly when at least one of them is in port at any given time? I'm also assuming that we retain some sort of ocean surveillance system (SOSUS equivalent) even in the post Cold War era. I know there's a mobile equivalent mounted on ships like the Victorious and Impeccable.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Reziac]

Considering that Obama wants to dismantle part of our defense capability, notably our missile system, maybe this comes as a warning to the wise, no matter who sent it up.

Re:Hmmm ....

[TheLink]

That makes no sense. I'm very very sure the Chinese military (and the rest of the world[1]) are already well aware that:

1) The US is perfectly capable of launching ICBMs.
2) The US is capable of unilaterally starting wars (and lying about the reasons).

That's why the Chinese military are building up their missile and nuke tech in the first place.

[1] At least the parts that could conceivably be worth an ICBM.

Re:Hmmm ....

[sabt-pestnu]

The ambassador said he thought it could be a demonstration that "we could do that". It could also be a demonstration by someone else, that they could do that. Demonstrations aren't so very often kept quiet. What's the point, if you don't show it?

It could also have been an accidental firing. Those are kept as quiet as possible, unless there's some propaganda you can salvage from it after the fact. I'd like to see who is scrambling downrange to find the leftover bits.

Re:Hmmm ....

[barzok]

Because they may have forgotten that we've been capable of doing it for 50 years?

Re:Hmmm ....

[falsified]

I guess my original point still stands - what's the point of demonstrating something that's known, and has existed in some viable form for decades?

I think if the military wanted to scare China they'd be a little more transparent about it (while still not giving anything away that puts us in violation of treaties).

Also, as far as I can tell, nobody knows where the damn thing landed - it's not much of a display if the missile landed fifteen miles from the launch site.

Re:Hmmm ....

[joggle]

Should your fixed ICBM launch sites be taken out by a preemptive attack you would still have the ability to counterattack from your subs which are virtually impervious to a preemptive attack.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Teancum]

I don't know where I read this, but it seems like there is at least an annual test of the launcher systems of all nuclear submarines, simply to make sure that the crew is sufficiently trained on the procedure and that the equipment is all working as intended. Usually this is accompanies by a "Notice to Mariners" and semi-publicized in terms of warning commercial shipping groups to stay out of the area, as having a ballistic missile bump into the keel of your ship is something most ship's captains would want to avoid if possible. The exact location may be kept secret or given a slightly false location to keep anti-war idiots from trying to be heroic by committing suicide, but a general region of the ocean would be marked as a place to "stay away from" in terms of testing.

Often these notices will be released at the last minute and there certainly won't be much in the way of details, but if this is an official test by the U.S. military there usually is at least some claim to the fact that it happened. The question is ore why that wasn't the case here, or perhaps it was an "oops" where some sailor screwed up and punched the wrong button. If that was the case, expect a cover-up on this because those kind of secrets never get released to the public.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Atzanteol]

Shiiiiit, maaaaan. That honky muf' be messin' mah old lady... got to be runnin' cold upside down his head, you know?

Or did you mean "jibe?"

Re:Hmmm ....

[blair1q]

Haha. That thing was 15 miles from the launch site 30 seconds after launch.

As for why to demonstrate it, well, let's just say empirical evidence is better than schoolyard taunts any day.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Teancum]

If the Navy was testing a new launch system, they would at least give a formal notice of warning to commercial shippers in the area to stay away from the test site. The problem is that such a notice didn't happen.

People do make mistakes, and perhaps there is a reason to not want publicity of any kind, but such warnings are rather routine and commonly given for any kind of live fire test. Saying that some ships are going to be testing their gunnery and then firing a missile off during the middle of that "test" would be reasonable. The problem is that such a notice wasn't even given, and the fact that no such notice exists turns this into news, rather than a routine missile test.

So the question comes, what message is being sent by publicizing something like this? Giving out a "Notice to Mariners" would have been the best way to cover this up, to claim this is a "routine" test and nothing more.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Wonko the Sane]

Surely we have the assets to track three SSBNs, particularly when at least one of them is in port at any given time?

I was in the Atlantic fleet, but to the best of my knowledge the US Navy doesn't do that kind of thing anymore, at least not all the time.

I can tell you that fast attack submarines in general did not train and practice for this kind of mission and the officers in general did not take the threat posed by another nuclear navy seriously at all while I was there.

The institutional knowledge and skills to successfully pull off the kind of sub-on-sub tracking that they did in the cold war did not exist anywhere that I could see.

Re:Hmmm ....

[jernejk]

Good point. I think there's an aircraft visible in the video, possible passenger jet, so probably no NOTAMs

Re:Hmmm ....

[chmod a x mojo]

It's not impossible, not even HIGHLY improbable. Over the years we have had more than a few close calls on having nuclear strikes sent out live when it was SUPPOSED to be a drill.

All you need for one screw up is the ones relaying the orders to screw up giving "test" launch / order codes and accidentally give "live / real" launch codes. It HAS happened.... you can never take the human element out of things so you can never have 100% accuracy.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Nadaka]

inter means between or among. an ICBM travels from one continent to another (between). an SSBM only has a continent at one end. It is kinda nitpicking.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Romberg]

Now commencing Operation ELECTRIC BOOGALOO!!!!

Re:Hmmm ....

[blair1q]

1. How far away are the continents? All of them? So what does "ICBM" really tell you?

2. How big is the biggest continent? How far does a missile have to fly to hit its center from the nearest safe spot for a sub?

3. In a pinch, will your subs be in the nearest safe spot? Or would it be useful to be able to accomplish the mission from spots that aren't so close?

4. It's handy to be able to put your launch platforms close, but it's handier to put your launch platforms random, and making "close" include "far" makes for more random.

5. We already put the Alien Spaceport in Wyoming. Give the ocean something to do.

Re:Hmmm ....

[osu-neko]

What next, will the US demonstrate that cars can be made with tail fins?

Considering the state of Detroit today, people may be wondering whether we still have the capability...

Re:Hmmm ....

[KarrdeSW]

35 miles out to sea is in international waters..... shy of declaring war the U.S. Navy isn't going to destroy anything with impunity, but you will see a few naval officers get demoted real fast for failing to detect that vessel if it wasn't associated with the Navy.

Let's ignore that the US hasn't actually ratified the international treaties that sets those rules, meaning it doesn't really care what China or anyone else thinks it can do 35 miles from US coast.

You're forgetting that this was launched in the middle of the Channel Islands off the California coast, it's considered Archipelagic waters and therefore sovereign US territory.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Teancum]

Failsafes are designed to fail.... safe. In other words, if they fail they aren't supposed to work at all. Not everything can be made that way, but that is the best way to design equipment that could potentially cause damage.

There is of course the Chernobyl Power Plant that wasn't designed to fail safely, but then again that was widely considered a poor design where the design itself was in part the cause of the disaster that happened. Lousy & sloppy engineering is often the cause of many problems.

Re:Hmmm ....

[blair1q]

That's just what Mr. Limpet wants you to think.

Re:Hmmm ....

[miserere nobis]

"Over there" means "Asia", I suspect. Obama's tour does not include a stop in China, but it does include stops in potential or actual rivals of China, and could reasonably be coupled with a demonstration aimed at China to show we are serious about alliances with Japan, India, South Korea, etc., and about continued U.S. influence in that part of the world.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

It indeed could have been because he said a missile gives away your exact location and you said "but it wasn't destroyed so it could be that good" instead of connecting the fact that since nothing was "caught" it clearly was one of our own?

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the two likely scenarios would be: 1) The US test firing something, but nobody knows who or what just yet because it is being kept secret. 2) Someone else firing off missiles off the coast of the US to demonstrate a point.

I consider 1) likely, and 2) just downright scary.

Probably #1. My bet is a Trident missile launch associacted with the Naval Facility on San Nicholas. Many people's heads will role because if Norad, or the Russians/Chinese did not know it was a test it could have started WWIII.

Re:Hmmm ....

[blair1q]

I find that a bit apocryphal.

China already gets it. They were there when we were testing these decades ago.

And Obama doesn't really need to demonstrate anything to China, and isn't the sort of guy to go around waving this sort of dick at people just to intimidate them.

If this was intended for China's benefit, I can see it coming from W but not from Barry.

On the other hand, Sarah Palin has been in need of a reality check for some time. And I bet she could see this thing from her house. Especially if it embedded itself in the barn she keeps her "snow machines" in.

Re:Hmmm ....

[chad.koehler]

Hank:  Uh, Dad, this is Minh, he's....  Japanese

Cotton:  No he aint....  He's Laotian.

One of the funniest lines ever.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Demonantis]

The Trident missile is an ICBM that is launched from a Submarine(it is used as an example on wikipedia). ICBM categorization defines the distance(greater than 5,500 km or 3,500 miles) where SLBM categorization defines the launching platform. If you are going to BTW someone at least know what you are talking about. The categories are not discreet separate groups. Although you are correct in calling it an SLBM before an ICBM as the range of the missile was never defined.

Re:Hmmm ....

[sjames]

Or DHS needs more money. Nothing gets funding like a security panic.

Re:Hmmm ....

[miserere nobis]

No, a sub 35 miles away from the US coast would very likely submerge after launch and be long gone by the time anyone got near to find it. We don't have destroyers covering every inch of the coast every minute. Certainly by the time anyone capable of locating the sub got near, it would be clear that there was no direct hostile action taking place. The missile appears to have been directed northwest, which suggests it may have been meant to be a show to the US without actually causing anyone in Washington to believe we were under attack.

Re:Hmmm ....

[miserere nobis]

I think by the end of your post ("requirement to file paperwork with the FAA," etc.) you forgot what you said at the beginning ("is in international waters").

Re:Hmmm ....

[The Mighty Buzzard]

3) We're in for a really sweet episode of Mythbusters soon.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Low Ranked Craig]

IAMARS but I'd like to propose a 3rd Scenario: it's a jet contrail, and due to the camera angle of the shot and the lighting looks kind of like a missile. I've seen lots of missile and rocket launches and the exhaust trail doesn't look exactly like that, similar, but not quite the same. I'm using Chrome and I can't paste in here, go to Youtube and search for Trident launches, there are plenty. Also note the speed - it's moving pretty slow for an ICBM. Even at the angle that the video is shot, by the time an ICBM (pedantry nullifier: all modern SLBMs ar also ICBMs) get to that altitude it would be travelling at 4-5000 m/s or faster, and will go about 300km miles down range in 60 seconds. Also, all modern SLBMs are multi-stage. About 2 minutes in stage 2 would have burned out and stage 3 started, but I don't see any evidence of the 3rd stage igniting in the video, and after 2 minutes the velocity would be over 6000 m/s and the missile wound be close to 800km downrange. Also, note the interesting lighting and the green flash reflecting off the vehicle.

My conclusion is a big jet travelling north west, possible an American Airlines plane due to the intensity of the flash.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

The most likely thing is the U.S. accidently fired something ( it can happen ) that they don't want to admit. Like an unarmed nuke or some kind of weapon they don't want other people to know about.

Re:Hmmm ....

[osu-neko]

Don't be silly, nothing in DC can over power the stench of congress.

The Pentagon isn't in DC. :p

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

On 2)....

Could be the Chinese, firing an unloaded missle close off L.A., just demonstrating how really displeased they are with the presnet Administration's proposal to ramp up U.S. inflation.

Not the first time that powerful creditors have resorted to using the military to collect debts.

Re:Hmmm ....

[YrWrstNtmr]

I don't know where I read this, but it seems like there is at least an annual test of the launcher systems of all nuclear submarines, simply to make sure that the crew is sufficiently trained on the procedure and that the equipment is all working as intended.

Seeing as we have 14 of these things, that would be one test launch, at least every other month (some subs in dock for training or refit). Seeing as we haven't seen any other recent 'unknown' launches...well, you make the call.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Teancum]

There is the distinct possibility that some XO or other military official responsible for the paperwork forgot to file the notice. In which case the U.S. Navy gets itself a new ensign or has a new slot open up for the XO spot on the submarine due to "retirement". It is about as bad as having a ship run aground... usually a way to cashier a ship's captain rather quickly.

Even then, it would seem like checking to make sure that the "Notice to Mariners" has been properly sent out and filed would be one of the steps listed on a checklist that the ship's captain would have to review while making one of these launches, if it was planned.

A live fire test, while the details aren't usually publicized, a basic notice that something is going on is necessary to protect commercial shipping. Given the location next to some major international shipping routes, I seriously can't imagine somebody being so irresponsible as to endanger civilians near the U.S. coast. It shows incompetence on the part of the U.S. Navy regardless of what the cause is, and that to me is the real scary part.

The Navy is incompetent if

* they weren't aware of a military vessel of another nation being in close to the U.S. Coast that could launch missiles close to major population centers of America
* the test wasn't planned and a screwup happened where the missile simply had to be fired
* the test was planned, but notification wasn't given to the public

Yeah, that is scary.

Re:Hmmm ....

[gfreeman]

Vasily - one ping only.

Re:Hmmm ....

[mikestew]

As far as demonstrations of ICBM range are concerned, yeah, effectively the same.

Re:Hmmm ....

[miserere nobis]

Exactly. "Did it come back down?" and "Where did it go?" are obvious questions none of the articles I've seen are asking. And why aren't the media outlets seeming to ask anyone other than the Pentagon who could answer those questions? I haven't seen any reports of comments from NASA or from any Russian government agency.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

3) The CIA owns this baby, which by the way is the correct choice

Re:Hmmm ....

[miserere nobis]

More likely the point of the demonstration would be that they could launch at the U.S. from close enough that we'd have practically no response time.

Re:Hmmm ....

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Sigh, OK, let me explain in geek.

If you have an array of 30 reasons for going to war (@reasons), all with non-false values, doing a print $reasons[3] does not make @reasons evaluate false. It doesn't even make $reasons[3] evaluate false. Not even if $reasons[24] == 'oil'. Massive logic fail for you, go debug.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Teancum]

The missile went out to the middle of the Pacific Ocean, definitely heading west (in a general direction) away from population centers. I don't think there is any real concern about where it landed but rather who launched the thing in the first place.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Shakrai]

The Tomahawk is a cruise missile. It's effectively a small pilot-less aircraft with a warhead.

Re:Hmmm ....

[harl]

Firing a missile 30 miles off the coast isn't shady. It's drawing lots of attention. That's the opposite of what the shady groups want.

Accidentally taking down a plane would have the same problem. Major investigation into said shady activity.

File a NOTAM. Put someone else's name (navy) on it. Shady group hides in the chaos.

Re:Hmmm ....

[NatasRevol]

I disagree. It looked like it was heading north-west. Towards Alaska, Russia, China.

I think that's a very big concern, hence my question.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Teancum]

If it can be detected by a local television station traffic helicopter, I don't think they are trying to be all that subtle about the launch itself. If it was another country (aka China) that launched the missile, it was a major political statement essentially telling America that they must submit to the will of the Chinese government or America will be destroyed in a nuclear holocaust.

Somehow the reaction to such a move, if that really was the desire, is something that by itself could trigger a war of some kind, and certainly create a backlash from the American people if that really is the case.

My concern is that this missile launch happened next to major international shipping lanes, which is why some claim or notice of a live fire test would have generally been filed by the U.S. Navy. The port of Los Angeles is in fact one of the major shipping areas receiving merchandise from China, as well as other trade from major ports in the Pacific Ocean.

Re:Hmmm ....

[SETIGuy]

'Cept if it was a demonstration to China, why do it 35 mi off the coast of LA? It seems unlikely to be seen from China there.

In addition to being a demonstration, it would also be a test. A test launch will be done where the tracking cameras are, which would be VAFB, Torrance, Big Sur, the Channel Islands, San Diego... I still haven't heard whether it was heading north or south.

Re:Hmmm ....

[mvdwege]

Yatakang?

(Let's see who picks up on this one)

Mart

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

NOTAM or not, I think they can easily determine with good probability that the airspace in questions is clear (Radar?). Commercial airliners do not inhibit stealth technology. Besides, commercial airliners usually fly known airways.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Shakrai]

The institutional knowledge and skills to successfully pull off the kind of sub-on-sub tracking that they did in the cold war did not exist anywhere that I could see.

That's depressing. The USN has really gone "all in" on this brown water force projection BS haven't they? I guess the blue water navy didn't seem as relevant after the Cold War ended but it seems to me that we really need to practice tracking the vessels that can kill tens of millions of American citizens at a moments notice. Of course I'm just an armchair Admiral, so what do I know :)

Maybe when the Chinese do something that we haven't done before we'll finally wake up and shake off our complacency. I think we need another Sputnik as a kick in the pants.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

You are assuming everything is under control in military. You clearly haven't seen "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb", the movie.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

When you grow up you can actually SERVE in the military, and you won't have to get all your information from movies.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Peach Rings]

You can launch missiles into orbit whenever you want. You don't even need to notify the FAA, but they advise you to. Amateur rocketry is really common, especially for studying weather and space.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Raenex]

I don't see how the US firing mystery missiles off it's own coast would be a wise saber-rattling move, as it's just as likely to panic the population on the coast. When the US wants to rattle its saber, it sends out carrier groups or holds military exercises, and tells everybody what it's doing.

This is mostly likely China or Iran fucking with us.

Re:Hmmm ....

[HarvardAce]

What about:
(3) Launch by terrorist/hostile regime, aimed at LA, but it failed and missed the target.

While it certainly doesn't sound plausible, at this point I don't think it's much less plausible than the other options I've seen tossed around, and it certainly has the gravest implications.

Re:Hmmm ....

[moonbender]

"Obama would already be on his way back"

Uh...in other news, he is.

... on his way back... to South Korea?

Re:Hmmm ....

[SatanicPuppy]

Well yea. Everyone who is on the SC would have to agree, and that's probably not going to happen.

Re:Hmmm ....

[SETIGuy]

Considering that Obama wants to dismantle part of our defense capability, notably our missile system...

He canceled the not-yet-built expensive, fixed site ABM system that doesn't work but was really good at getting the Russians to threaten to invade our allies with a ship based one that also doesn't work but can move to be in position between the targets and trouble spots. I'm not sure that can be called dismantling our defense capability.

We've never had a working system for intercepting ICBMs. We might be able to handle IRBMs with the planned system, but ICBMs, no.

Re:Hmmm ....

[TechNit]

My thoughts exactly...

Re:Hmmm ....

[Shakrai]

If it doesn't work then why are the Russians so afraid of it?

Re:Hmmm ....

[demonlapin]

I am not so jingoistic as to think it impossible for another nation to slide a sub into the waters 30 miles off LA without being noticed, though I do think it unlikely. But announcing that you can slip into US waters by firing an SLBM is not the way to do it if you're sane. "Can get in and out undetected" is very different from "can remain undetected after launching a missile".

Re:Hmmm ....

[atrain728]

However, executing that demonstration would result in the sinking of your ship, and the loss of a portion of that capability.) With so many US military installations nearby, the submarine that did the launching, regardless of it's stealth characteristics, would be located in very short order.

Re:Hmmm ....

[KDR_11k]

Attacking a military vessel is usually considered an act of war, of course it could be destroyed easily but doing so would have far-reaching consequences. This isn't about what's possible or what's legal, it's about what the potential owner of the launcher would do in return.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a treaty with the old Soviets that prohibits Nuclear missiles (bases, Silos, etc) in several areas of the country. California is one of them.

My guess is it was to

A.) reduce the threat of using "Tactical" missiles to destroy our launch capability in our most populated areas

B.) create an agreed upon area that we can test missiles and not get nuked.

I favor B more than A

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Indonesia, China. Same thing.

Have you seen a map of what China is claiming as territorial waters? Might as well be the same thing.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Teancum]

It was launched north of Santa Catalina, so it was in international waters. While the U.S. hasn't necessarily ratified those treaties, by convention and federal law it has only claimed out 12 miles to sea, except for "economic exclusive zones" that go out to 200 miles. Still, military vessels can approach the U.S. coast without fear of reprisals, and certainly the U.S. Navy goes right up to the claimed coastal borders of many other nations, including countries not exactly friendly to the USA.

It is certainly not sovereign U.S. territory at the location suggested.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Quiet_Desperation]

So, the two likely scenarios would be: 1) The US test firing something, but nobody knows who or what just yet because it is being kept secret. 2) Someone else firing off missiles off the coast of the US to demonstrate a point.

I consider 1) likely, and 2) just downright scary.

3) It's a friggin' airplane and contrail. People mistake these for missiles all the time when the lighting and perspective is just right, and a news organization in one of the top media markets in the world should know that.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

The US typically enforces its will at a minimum of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) which is 200 Mi out to sea or the continental shelf which is up to 500Mi out (in some parts of the world. I think sometimes the continental shelf plus the EEZ depending on how sensitive it is

I believe even if it is international waters, the UN typically cedes that if it is within the EEZ, Continental Shelf, or Congituious zone, the Nation State has Jurisdiction over it.

Here is a map of the US Maritime Territory

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/18/EEZ-USA.png

Re:Hmmm ....

[Teancum]

These launches typically don't get into the news, because the Navy claims that it is a "live fire" test of some kind and very routine. In other words, there aren't recent "unknown" launches because they are all mostly "known" launches and so routine that the press doesn't cover them.

This one is different because it was caught by a traffic helicopters and because the Navy is disclaiming the incident as a training exercise. That is what makes this newsworthy, not that submarines are launching missiles. Generally speaking, so much happens with the military that you don't know what is going on.

Yeah, one test launch a month sounds about right, at least somewhere at some time. It really is that routine. That is the cost of running something as big as the U.S. military.

Re:Hmmm ....

[voidptr]

Anything above the entry-level "model rocket" category certainly does need FAA notification and approval if you're doing it inside US airspace: http://www.nar.org/pdf/FARrockets0209.pdf .

Anything going remotely close to orbit is going to get into the High Power or Advanced High Power categories.

Re:Hmmm ....

[HiThere]

Well... that *was* a comedy, and real life isn't quite so funny. OTOH, except for the compressed timeline genuine SNAFUs are frequent enough that *I* didn't find the basic plot unbelievable. And we were, at one point, only seconds away from WWIII.

I grew up in a military family. This did not cause me to have faith in the ability of the military to exercise good judgment, or to get rid of crazy people.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Teancum]

If you are an American citizen, by treaty you still need to file paperwork with the FAA and file a "Notice to Mariners" if you are going to be launching rockets. Sea Launch is an example of an American company who launches rockets at sea which go into orbit, in part to avoid the hassle of dealing with clearing air traffic near major metro areas and to get close to the equator to take advantage of the rotational spin of the Earth. They still have to file paperwork with the FAA for every one of their launches.

Being international waters only keeps the feds off your case if you aren't an American, in which case you fall under the jurisdiction of another government instead and they take responsibility for whatever you do. An American can get approval for things like this through the FAA-AST and other agencies, but other countries usually tell their citizens "No" in terms of giving permission to fly stuff like that as they don't even have the legal framework to permit these launches.

I know the UK and some European countries are making some exceptions and permitting some amateur rocketry, but the legal environment still isn't all that clear.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, it's not us here in the UK.
We only have three subs, two are always broken and we can't afford sailors for the other one.

Re:Hmmm ....

[IndustrialComplex]

If it doesn't work then why are the Russians so afraid of it?

A 150lb ITG picking a fight with a 230lb fighter would make you say "Why would the 230lb guy worry?"

Because the 150lb guy might delude himself into believing his own hype, and you DON'T want someone thinking that they have the ability to start a nuclear war and not suffer consequences. Even if they are wrong, they might believe their own hype.

Re:Hmmm ....

[mitgib]

What about a technician repairing those launch circuits though? Sure I would imagine taking launch ability away from a station before taking it offline for repair/maintenance, but then again, accidents do happen, and Murphy will see to it that it is at the most in-opportune time.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Teancum]

North-west from Los Angeles is also into an area of the Pacific that has a whole lot of nothing, not even much in terms of commercial shipping lanes or even an occasional island. It is about the most featureless part of the planet you can go to, and about zero population. If you are going to send a missile somewhere, that would seem like the safest place to send one. Yeah, Alaska, Russia, Japan, and China are all in that general direction, but those places are thousands of miles away too.

At least the missile didn't go east, as that would have been over the homes of several million people.

Re:Hmmm ....

[lennier]

[DrTinyEvilCat]

This matter falls within my purrview.

[/DrTinyEvilCat]

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems unlikely that the US military would forget to close the airspace around such a demonstration...

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to know one thing.

Where did it land?

Vunce ze missiles go up, who cares vhere zey come down?
That's not my department, says Werner von Braun.

Re:Hmmm ....

[lennier]

Cue movie rights bargaining for "Crimson Tide II" in three, two, one...

Re:Hmmm ....

[Shakrai]

Nobody in the United States has claimed that we can start a nuclear war without consequences. Nobody in the US political or military hierarchy believes that NMD can halt an attack from Russia. Hell, it probably can't even halt an attack from China at this point.

It's aimed squarely at Iran and North Korea. Hell, the interceptors aren't even positioned to intercept missiles coming from Russia. The Russians know this. The Pentagon knows this. What's the problem?

Re:Hmmm ....

[Rich0]

Of course, it is entirely possible that the Chinese launched this, and the USN knew all about the sub being there, and that they directly observed the launch.

They of course wouldn't disclose this, because they wouldn't want to indicate that the sub was tracked, as this is a useful secret to maintain.

And, it isn't like they could have done anything to stop it. The launch was in international waters. They could have randomly torpedoed the sub while it was at sea - not a good diplomatic move. They could have seen the sub get ready to launch, and torpedoed it then, but a sub probably doesn't look like it is launching until it is virtually doing so (just going to periscope depth doesn't constitute a launch - and off the coast they won't be super-deep in any case, and subs go to periscope depth for all kinds of things anyway even in the middle of the ocean). Once they hear doors opening (if they notice) their only options are sink it or don't sink it. Until it actually fires on the US I doubt they'd do anything.

If it was tracked, then no doubt if the sub fired on the US an order would go out to sink it fairly quickly. However, that would be after a considerable delay - probably enough to fire an entire salvo. You can't really stop something like this without having a REALLY twitchy finger and if that happened we'd hear about sub sinkings all the time.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

The US wants to sail their "missile shield" (which doesn't actually exist, everyone knows it doesn't exist, but juuuuust so happens to look like offensive weapons but its really a missile shield, honest!) up to their back door?

Russians aren't that dumb.

Re:Hmmm ....

[KarrdeSW]

North of Santa Catalina IS Los Angeles. Admittedly, TFA is not really precise on where it was, it was actually right next to Santa Barbara island, which is still US Territory. But either way, it doesn't matter if it were actually between Santa Catalina and Los Angeles, archipelagic waters define your national boundary around the outermost islands. In other words, your 12 miles of federally claimed sea only begin once you're past San Nicholas and San Clemente

Military vessels can also only approach if their mission is innocent (it also doesn't matter what other countries the US Navy approaches, everyone already knows we're hypocrites), an unannounced missile launch, no matter where it's pointed, would not be regarded as innocent.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct about the value to an adversary about a demonstration launch from US waters.

But its a risky move to engage in this kind of stunt because the Russians might think it was a surprise attack of some kind.

Hardy har! This is not an adversary's rocket. This is not something even Korea would do. Breaching another country's borders and then firing weapons is truly an act of war. Even if you are not firing on citizens, you will be killed immediately. Are you suggesting that China (or other) would risk a missle firing submarine for this purpose when they really could perform the same demonstration originating from their home waters? Because if so... this is not a symbol, this is WAR and even the UN would support any reaction the US decided to concoct.

This is the US military that launched this... because if it was a "demonstration" from some country trying to flex some muscle, then we'd already see our reserves being called up to prepare for our own "demonstration" ie: war

The suggestion that it is private is also ridiculous, because what business would not take such an opportunity to market it/themselves? ie: no marketing, therefore not business related.

Conclusion: US Military launch

Re:Hmmm ....

[Wyatt Earp]

Which treaty is that?

Because Vandenberg AFB has Minuteman silos for testing and Ballistic Missile Defense silos for testing, both of which could house active duty Minuteman III missiles.

Edwards AFB is home to a test wing which includes B-1B and B-2 bombers both of which are nuclear capable, or until 2007 were.

There are three carriers based in California, all of which carry nuclear weapons

Re:Hmmm ....

[DamnStupidElf]

Or this was an anti-missile launch. A sea-based missile shield would dramatically improve our ability to counter launches from other countries. Park some missile shield subs off the coast of North Korea and turn any of their launches into shrapnel right over Pyongyang.

Re:Hmmm ....

[icebike]

Breaching another country's borders???

Did you not read a single word of the linked story?

Re:Hmmm ....

[Wonko the Sane]

What about a technician repairing those launch circuits though?

No.

I've never been on an SSBN but I can tell you what is involved with launching a Tomahawk cruise missile.

First of all, the missiles are not kept powered on all the time. There is a process that you must go through to do that.

Second, the physical process of launching the missile involves a number of systems that involve people directly manipulating valves, pumps, tanks and other non-electronic hardware.

There is absolutely no way for this process to happen by itself accidentally.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Wyatt Earp]

If the nuclear missile sub is in Lake Michigan and fires it's missile to Europe, is it an SLBM or ICBM?

If a ICBM is based in Hawaii and is launched at Asia, has it lost the Intercontinental?

Re:Hmmm ....

[BobMcD]

Cool theory, except for the part where they evidently weren't caught. So yes, maybe their stealth sub is THAT GOOD that they can fire a missle a few miles off our coast and get away with it.

Unless perhaps since the President was out of town, no one gave the order to return fire before they realized that it was just a demonstration and not an actual attack?

Re:Hmmm ....

[xenapan]

Does ANYONE seriously think its China? The US is how many TRILLIONS into debt? Who are we borrowing from? China could practically cripple the US if they wanted to at this point. Most of the money that we spent on the war that we DONT have was borrowed from China. China also manufactures a good proportion of US goods. China also exports a good amount of US goods. http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balace/c5700.html#2010

and if you look there, our trade deficit started small in ... 1985 and has just grown EVERY SINGLE YEAR. If they wanted to screw us, economically they could do it and pretty easily.

Re:Hmmm ....

[gtall]

Nope, he was in Indonesia or on his way to Korea at the time this thing went off.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Aleutians. Rumor is there was an interceptor test at the other end.

Re:Hmmm ....

[gtall]

The Chinese military is more likely gearing up for a run at Taiwan, to cover the nakedness of the Chinese government's illegitimacy. They'd be needing to hold off the U.S. long enough for their invasion to be a fait accompli.

Re:Hmmm ....

[LWATCDR]

"Are all SLBM's implicitly intercontinental? You make a good point, but clearly you know more about this than most of us. I have no idea if most sub-launched missiles have that kind of range or not."
They do but they do not fly from continent to continent they fly from the sea. Yes it is a nit picky distinction but military terms like scientific and most other technical terms are extremely specific. Just as it would be wrong to call a spider an insect. I don't trust the knowledge of anyone that talks about a sub launching an ICBM.

Re:Hmmm ....

[BobMcD]

Often these notices will be released at the last minute and there certainly won't be much in the way of details, but if this is an official test by the U.S. military there usually is at least some claim to the fact that it happened. The question is ore why that wasn't the case here, or perhaps it was an "oops" where some sailor screwed up and punched the wrong button. If that was the case, expect a cover-up on this because those kind of secrets never get released to the public.

As of my most recent searching the list of people denying knowledge includes:

The Navy
The Airforce
The FAA
The DoD as a whole

This, also, is almost 24 hours after the fact. If some idiot sailor accidentally spent several hundred thousand dollars we'd probably know about it by now.

Re:Hmmm ....

[gtall]

It was also to counter-balance the Chinese in S. Asia. They've been playing a lot down there and the U.S. isn't happy about it.

Re:Hmmm ....

[molo]

First off, thank you for your service. A question if you don't mind: Were you aboard the Hartford during the grounding incident in Sardinia? What was that like?

-molo

Re:Hmmm ....

[j00r0m4nc3r]

It isn't like the Navy would want to broadcast "Yesterday Sgt Gomer found PFC Pile had accidentally started a serious breach of safety and security, causing us to launch the bird to keep the dumbass from blowing the whole ship up. We apologize for any scares and can assure you Pile is now manning a station in the Arctic circle. Have a nice day."

This is one of the things that I hate most about our military (and govt in general) -- their need to continually try and hide shit and cover things up from the public. Accidents happen, mistakes happen. I don't need to be treated like a fucking child and placated and have everything sugar-coated. Just be honest, and fix the problem so it doesn't happen again. Are American's so fucking deluded to think that mistakes never happen in military exercises? That's one of the consequences of having a strong military power. It just makes them look like a bunch of fucking cowards when they hide shit. Too chicken-shit to tell me to my face that they screwed up... How can I respect my military if they don't even have the balls to fess up?

Re:Hmmm ....

[BobMcD]

Not to mention the thing likely costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to replace...

Re:Hmmm ....

[LWATCDR]

A new Ensign? This is far worse than running a ship aground. If this was a launch with out a NOTAM filed this could end up with jail time. One would think that not only would the check box be for filing it but that it was also issued before you press the big red button.

You left out the last option that gets the navy at least a little off the hook.

It was a contrail of an bizjet or airliner. In which case NORAD and the FAA are incompetent because that plane would have had to be in IFR air space and probably coming in from outside the US territorial limit. The FAA and NORAD should have the data to say that was FLT xxx and it was at FLx at that time heading to y from z.
If they can not then the US really had no real air defense at all.
From the really poor quality video I can tell you that it wasn't an SM-2 because it was way too slow. I live near the Cape in Florida so I have seen a lot of launches. That contrail was also not from a Delta 4 or Atlas. It does look a lot like a large solid fuel booster to me but web video really does suck.

Re:Hmmm ....

[BobMcD]

News media said there was no such thing filed. Haven't checked myself, but I think they thought of that possibility already. They specifically quoted the FAA as having no knowledge of it.

Re:Hmmm ....

[YrWrstNtmr]

However, with no first hand knowledge of fire control systems, I'm mostly just hoping that's the case. ;-)

That is the case.

A SLBM (or silo based ICBM, or aircraft carried weapon) can't just launch via an accident.
1. The sub has to come up to the proper launch depth (normally they are hanging out quite a bit deeper)
2. Several officers in the command chain (Captain, Exec, WEPS, etc) have to give the OK, via codes and keys.

There isn't just a big Easy button labeled 'Launch', when if you accidentally bump it, a missile leaves the sub.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Rich0]

I suspect the missile probably costs millions to replace, and the warhead(s) cost who knows how much - probably a lot more.

A phoenix missile or tomahawk cost $1M to replace. I think a ballistic missile with a range of 4000 miles and a CEP probably measured in yards would be more expensive.

Re:Hmmm ....

[gtall]

Yeah, that's right. The Chinese got pissed and decided to play Russian roulette with our response to them firing a missile off our coast.

Re:Hmmm ....

[leonardluen]

i don't know if you can get too much information out of who is scrambling downrange to find the leftover bits.

Because if it were one of mine due to a screw up, i would be scrambling to get the leftover bits, mostly for cover up, but also to determine what the heck went wrong.

if it wasn't one of mine (regardless of whether i actually knew who launched it) i would also be scrambling to get the leftover bits purely for analysis. to figure out its exact capabilities, and to figure out where it came from if i didn't know who fired it.

i guess if i fired it myself and it was a planned event, then i might not be scrambling to find the leftovers, unless something went wrong during the launch, in which case i would want to find them to try to figure out what went wrong. and then if i wanted to cover up the fact that it was a planned event then i would still go out to make a token attempt to find the leftovers so no one would wonder why i am not trying to find the leftovers.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Wonko the Sane]

Were you aboard the Hartford during the grounding incident in Sardinia?

Yes

What was that like?

Bumpy

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

This was a warning to the USA. the time was picked so that the rush hour peeps would get a good look. it basically says to us, they ( whoever 'they' are ) can drive their missile launcher right up to LA, and launch undetected. just as well that's the only point they were trying to make.

Re:Hmmm ....

[NatasRevol]

If it's an ICBM, it can go a long freaking way. Like thousands of miles.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Teancum]

An unannounced missile launch, no matter where it's pointed, would not be regarded as innocent.

On this point I'd have to agree, but it really isn't a military issue other than the fact that the U.S. Navy damn well should have known what was there, down to the crustaceans crawling on the bottom of the ocean in that area. If it move, flies, floats, or travels anywhere near the U.S. coast, it sure is the responsibility of the U.S. military to know about it being there.

The launch of a missile is certainly something that deserves an explanation and if it wasn't the U.S. Navy or some other branch of the military, or perhaps a private American rocket developer (very highly unlikely), this story is going to have legs and won't go away.

I hope it is a branch of the military when the whole things settles down, as I don't see private rocketry groups doing something like this without FAA approval. The FAA-AST is usually very cooperative with people genuinely trying to get rockets into the air, and the consequence of not going through that authority is bad enough that a private group wouldn't let the ton of legal bricks land on them in this manner without that approval. The launch certainly didn't fit within the unregulated classes of model rocketry.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention it would make absolutely NO sense to fire off the coast of CA and risk a panic

Vandenberg conducts routine test launches of Minuteman III ballistic missiles. Nobody panics. There is no risk of panic. Predicting 'panic' it a reliable indicator of bullshit.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Teancum]

If it was a demonstration or a "test", it would have been acknowledged by the U.S. Department of Defense. There have been literally hundreds of such tests in the past, including with larger and smaller rockets than the one shown by this news helicopter. Almost all of them have had notification to civilian authorities on the grounds that "uninvolved" members of the public can be potentially harmed with one of these launches, so zones will be made that will clear out a region of the ocean so they don't accidentally get hit by this test.

The military doesn't have to go into details, but they will acknowledge that they are the ones that caused the contrail, and will pay for damages if you happen to be very unlucky if the missile goes somewhere it shouldn't be at.

If this was something to do some "saber rattling" towards China, the DOD is doing a lousy job of it.

Re:Hmmm ....

[cptdondo]

Not to mention it would make absolutely NO sense to fire off the coast of CA and risk a panic when we already have test ranges in the Pacific just for such tests. I'm starting to wonder if this wasn't a fuckup, as that is the ONLY reason why I could think they would launch something that close.

That gets my vote. I can't think of any win-win scenario, either as a demonstration by the US or by some other power.

I'd guess this would be considered an act of war.

Of course there's always the possibility that the Repubs launched this to demonstrate the Dems inability to respond to a crisis.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Teancum]

Let's get to the real geek response here:

P --> Q
~Q --> ~P

However, you can't get

~P --> ~Q from the information given. This is called a logical fallacy, but unfortunately a rather common fallacy. It is also where syllogisms typically fall apart.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama is overseas and visiting with China's frenemies India, Indonesia, Japan, and South Korea. This seems like the sort of sabre rattling that a dictatorship might get up to.

The idea of an American attack sub watching the exchange amuses me and seems somewhat probable. I could also see it flooding torpedo tubes afterwords or some such aggressive tactic.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Stargoat]

You are expecting a fascist (they aren't communist any more) dictatorship to act rationally?

Re:Hmmm ....

[kwoff]

There's no reason for us to demonstrate our well-known SLBM capabilities to our own country's most populated county.

Who is "us"? The media certainly has a reason to attract attention.

Re:Hmmm ....

[LWATCDR]

ICBM always implies ground launched or always has. The Trident in every reference I have ever seen was classified as an SLBM.
Do you have a reference where it is defined as an ICBM?
fas.org classifies it as an SLBM.

Re:Hmmm ....

[AlamedaStone]

Sigh, OK, let me explain in geek.

If you have an array of 30 reasons for going to war (@reasons), all with non-false values, doing a print $reasons[3] does not make @reasons evaluate false. It doesn't even make $reasons[3] evaluate false. Not even if $reasons[24] == 'oil'. Massive logic fail for you, go debug.

I'm a credentialed geek, and I have no idea what you're talking about. Take it slower, and use a car analogy and some Whedon references, please.

Re:Hmmm ....

[miserere nobis]

I don't think locating a submarine is really as easy as you think. Especially when you're unlikely to get any sub hunting ships on scene for hours, or even helicopters for long enough that the search radius would be very large.

More importantly, since the missile was launched from international waters, and was fired away from the United States, sinking the boat that launched it would be a very unlikely response. Launching an actual attack against a vessel not in U.S. waters that was simply engaged in demonstrating its capabilities would be an unacceptable risk for us, as it would make a sabre-rattling incident into a real, shooting international conflict, and it would set a changed precedent for how other nations could be expected to fairly react when American ships or planes go near their territory and act provocatively, as they often do.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Stargoat]

Obama is visiting India, Japan, South Korea and Indonesia. China has fought wars with three out of four of these nations in the past 60 years. Furthermore, they are particular touchy about US diplomatic visits (ala Japan or Dalai Lama).

It's a fascist country (no longer communist) ruled by a military dictator. If the DoD says it wasn't them (and it wasn't - big assumption), and it's not a jet contrail at a strange angle, and it's not a local dude with a sweet model rocket, and there's no reason to suspect Russia, it is through process of elimination China.

Re:Hmmm ....

[miserere nobis]

Yes, likely, but by no means certainly. I don't know how we can have any idea whether "almost all" such things in the past have included notification, because the ones that don't are more or less by definition an unknown quantity. I have a feeling a lot of those decisions are made politically. If U.S. interests are better served by quietly demonstrating or testing something such that only the people who need to know about it know about it, then that's what they will do. There are more ways of conveying the proper message to foreign governments than a public claim of responsibility, and sometimes the back-channel hints are more appropriate than the publicly acknowledged sabre-rattling.

Re:Hmmm ....

[hairyfeet]

Hi MR AC! The problem with your theory is twofold: One, Catalina and Vandenberg are pretty much opposite each other relative to the position of the news chopper, and all the witnesses say it came from Catalina off the coast. Second Vandenberg hands out nice little press releases both before AND after. It is a SOP that the US military has been observing for over 50 years, and is there for a reason as it makes sure both the public and the foreign powers that can pick up such launches knows that we conducted a test.

So while some are using the "it was just an airplane" routine, I still vote fuckup. The US military has a long history of trying to keep fuckups quiet, and if it were an airplane considering how much air traffic is in the area we should have seen more than just the one. I frankly wouldn't be surprised if there was a leak that cuased one of our ships to have to launch a bird to get it off the ship, and if it had a nuclear payload there is probably some recovery ships right now quietly combing the area of splashdown looking for the warhead. If this is the case it would also explain the cover up, as the US military wouldn't want to risk that a bad guy beat them to the warhead, especially if it came down in waters that aren't particularly deep. Given the evidence we have so far that would be my best guess given the data.

Re:Hmmm ....

[turtleshadow]

Radar Track & Splash

Launching is one thing, where it when & where it splashes down is another. Somewhere along the line it ought to have a radar track unless its really far out.

Could be a home brew DIY given the locale?

The track & distance to splash tells a lot

There once was a company called Sea Launch wasn't there?

Re:Hmmm ....

[Teancum]

An invasion of Taiwan is likely to be the one thing to start a genuine global thermonuclear war. Unless China is willing to go toe to toe on such a proposition and lose 80%-90% of their population within a couple of hours after such an invasion, I find such an act highly unlikely.

Then again, with Barack Obama, I don't know if he has the balls to start a major war like that if provoked. With George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan, it wouldn't have even been a question at all.

On the other hand, somebody (who shall remain nameless at the moment) that I know with experience in China has suggested they would actually look forward to a 90% loss of their population. That would still leave over a hundred million people. That is sort of concerning that they value life so little, although it is true that it would be mainly urban areas that would be hit and the agriculture growing areas in China would largely be spared from such a major war.

If China is sending a message that they can get the west coast of America at will by firing this test, I suppose that is message received. Otherwise, I fail to see the point of this or why nobody is claiming credit.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

right.

Because it's 1922 and we dont have sonar or anything else like that yet.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Teancum]

I have heard that the membership of the permanent members of the Security Council are being suggested to expand, by offering membership to Germany, Japan, and perhaps both India and Pakistan. It would give Europe some extra voice (popular in the EU), and put an Islamic nation on the security council too via Pakistan. The only real sticking point is that it would reduce the influence of Russia and America, and Latin America would not be represented at all, nor would Africa. Still, you've got to admit that this group of nine countries are the ones who really make the decisions on the Earth today.

Re:Hmmm ....

[LynnwoodRooster]

What next, will the US demonstrate that cars can be made with tail fins?

If they did, and actually carried through on the demonstration, maybe we wouldn't have had to bail them out...

Re:Hmmm ....

[Magada]

They've bigger problems of their own - not least of which is that the beaches of Zanzibar are getting mighty crowded.

Re:Hmmm ....

[LynnwoodRooster]

Most of China is due west of CA; NW of CA is mainly Russia and the Arctic.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Magada]

I hear the beaches of Zanzibar are pretty effin' crowded this time of year

Re:Hmmm ....

[Magada]

So should the FAA. But they didn't.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Teancum]

Those which are not acknowledged will not be done next to civilian population areas. I can say that with almost complete certainty here. I say almost to give some wiggle room, but at the same time some heads will be rolling if it was done without proper notification and most likely seeing some officers getting relieved of command.

The reason this is a big deal is because even the U.S. military must follow laws and they also can't go half cocked doing any damn thing they want. If it has the potential of harming civilians.... more importantly registered voters in multiple congressional districts... you had better realize those officers involved with this test are going to be losing their jobs over a fiasco like this. It simply isn't done any more.

The main wiggle room is for stuff done in the past, when the military was given a little more elbow room. Even then, general notifications to the public have long been a tradition. Those notification do happen, and it would be an extreme exception that such a notification didn't happen. More so, on the few occasions when a notification didn't happen, when something got to the major media outlets the government would at least acknowledge they were doing a "routine test" simply to spin the event into a non-issue.

The big deal is that the military isn't doing that, so the question has to be: why? What would it be protecting?

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

My bad, you know they say the internet destroys investigative journalism.....

I think i was transposing one of the proposed compromises to put interceptors in CA.....(which have replaced several Minuteman missiles at Vandenberg)....I would guess they look like ICBMs when launched too

Re:Hmmm ....

[SETIGuy]

The big problem is that those really big interceptor missiles (you know the ones that are about the size of a Minuteman III) could be modified to perform other tasks. Russia really doesn't want to see former Soviet block states with their own ballistic missile fleets.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Low Ranked Craig]

Apparently some pilots agree with me... http://uncinus.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/4/

Re:Hmmm ....

[Teancum]

Yeah.... France is certainly capable of destroying the planet with nuclear weapons.

While I'll admit that France has nukes, I don't think its membership in the UN Security Council is one that is necessarily showing the strongest countries in the world militarily. France seems to be able to lose most wars it participates in, often in a very glorious fashion. Somehow they seem to end up smelling like roses afterward too, for some reason. World War I, I believe, was the last war they actually "won", and even that only because of the support of their allies. If left to themselves, France would have lost that war too.

They sat out most of World War II... as an occupied nation. Yeah, that shows their military prowess. And their "reward" for that military achievement was control of a quarter of Germany at the end, later relinquished to become West Germany.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Jesus_666]

Chinese officials have confirmed that American ICBM targeting systems are on par with Chinese ones - both point at the USA.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering they already got the plans for the W88 warhead (thanks Bill Clinton!) which is designed to be delivered from an SLBM, I think they already know about the that capability.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Teancum]

Is there any record or anything that actually saw this thing get launched and go up? I saw a quick pan in the video which showed the contrail and a glint that may have been the business end of the rocket. All of it was so short on the clip that the rate of ascent certainly couldn't be determined from the video.

The suggestion that perhaps it was just the contrail of a commercial airliner seems to be the prevailing theory at the moment, which is why I ask. If it traveled 15 miles in 30 seconds, then clearly it was a rocket and not a commercial airliner.

Just say'in. This whole thing is so speculative that it is hard to say what is the truth here.

Re:Hmmm ....

[jackbird]

Nobody said anything about military prowess. France, however, has the third-largest nuclear weapons stockpile in the world, and is one of the five nations allowed to have nukes under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (please diff this list with with the five nations holding permanent seats on the security council, BTW.)

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did it land?

It landed at LAX because it's a plane. NEXT!

Re:Hmmm ....

[MasaMuneCyrus]

The reason that only the members of the security council have the capability is because members of the security council are the most powerful nations on earth, and each one actively develops their military. Obama is supporting India as a security council member likely because the China-India border is a huge spot for potential military flare-ups, and because the US and the rest of Asia want to pressure China to stop their increasingly violent, nationalistic, aggressive, hegemonic, and contradictory attitudes in the region. India, being the US-friendly country most capable of countering Chinese hegemony in Asia, is an up-and-coming potential super power, and the US wants them on board the security council.

If you're suggesting that submerged missile launch capability is some sort of secret right of passage into the security council, your fishy tin-foil hat is on too tight.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Thing 1]

I love compression in communication, so thank you, sir. One of my favorites is "short term ... [snapping fingers]"; and, I understand that this has a limited audience, of those people who are actively curing their tumors. Similarly, a mechanic who I went to once gets the following recommendation: "I wouldn't go back." That's all I need to say.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Thing 1]

To save everyone else the acronym lookup, ITG appears to be "Internet Tough Guy". I had never seen it before -- I spent some time finding it, so wanted to save the rest of you old folks the time. :) Saw it here -- it's the only one that really fits ("It Takes Guts" almost could, but not really within that sentence).

Re:Hmmm ....

[Wonko the Sane]

I was a little short because I thought that somebody was about to bring up that incompetent failure of a submarine officer Chris Brownfield's book. He spread some disinformation about that incident.

Re:Hmmm ....

[camperdave]

I remember reading a Star Trek novel and being highly disappointed that the author had Spock make that very error.

Re:Hmmm ....

[camperdave]

Nobody in the United States has claimed that we can start a nuclear war without consequences.

But there is the notion floating around that the US could somehow "win" a nuclear war. We all know the only winning move: not to play.

Re:Hmmm ....

[camperdave]

The Pentagon does have a clue. They know exactly where it was fired from and the whole history of the trajectory. They have many sensors that just stare at the earth from space watching for these launches.

"The war machine springs to life,
opens up one eager eye,
focussing in on the sky,
as ninety-nine red baloons go by."

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

No. No no no no no no NO.

The criteria for inclusion on the permanent seats of the UN Security Council are as follows: 1) At the end of World War II, be a world power (e.g. US, USSR/Russia); 2) At the end of WWII, be able to pretend to be a world power (e.g. France). No, I am not joking, although I am being somewhat sarcastic. The permanent seats haven't changed since the end of WWII, other than to pass to successor states (USSR -> Russia, Republic of China -> People's Republic of China).

The idea of offering permanent seats on the UNSC to nations that can nuke the world is....um....bad. It gives impetus to whackjob dictators in the third world and power-hungry demagogues in the first world to build nuclear arsenals so they can gain a veto in the UN and a position of prominence.

Re:Hmmm ....

[GeekZilla]

uh...what? I just read the summary. Did you expect me to actually RTFA? ;)

Re:Hmmm ....

[gnapster]

Yay! Everybody wins!

Re:Hmmm ....

[Nefarious Wheel]

Course manouvers. Contrails aren't that wide and don't appear singly.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Nefarious Wheel]

'Cept if it was a demonstration to China, why do it 35 mi off the coast of LA? It seems unlikely to be seen from China there.

Because there would be no point in launching from there if it didn't imply it could go anywhere. And the Chinese will have known about it 5 minutes after launch.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Nefarious Wheel]

...Its not like China is going to be impressed because of some additional sub-launched missile.

Think of it as the strategic equivalent of a "sternly worded letter".

Re:Hmmm ....

[shikaisi]

Well perhaps you're forgetting the provisions of plan R, sir.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone looked at the NOTAMS for that day?
If it was a government launch then a NOTAM must have been filed to clear the air space.
They would not risk an accident that would take out an airliner full of people.

I tried to look but found nothing listed.
As to a demonstration that the US can launch ballistic missiles from a sub... Well yea that has been proven for about the last 50 years. And you can bet your bottom dollar that you do not just pop off long range missile with out telling Russia and China that you are going to do it!
That could be bad...
BTW Subs do not launch intercontinental ballistic missiles "ICBMs". They launch Sub launched ballistic missiles "SLBMs"

At this point the fact that nobody is saying anything and it is getting so little press really scares the daylights out of me.

Has anyone looked at the NOTAMS for that day?
If it was a government launch then a NOTAM must have been filed to clear the air space.
They would not risk an accident that would take out an airliner full of people.

I tried to look but found nothing listed.
As to a demonstration that the US can launch ballistic missiles from a sub... Well yea that has been proven for about the last 50 years. And you can bet your bottom dollar that you do not just pop off long range missile with out telling Russia and China that you are going to do it!
That could be bad...
BTW Subs do not launch intercontinental ballistic missiles "ICBMs". They launch Sub launched ballistic missiles "SLBMs"

At this point the fact that nobody is saying anything and it is getting so little press really scares the daylights out of me.

something like this?

KZLA LOS ANGELES A2832/10 – THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS ARE REQUIRED DUE TO NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER WEAPONS DIVISION ACTIVATION OF W537. IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY, ALL NON-PARTICIPATING PILOTS ARE ADVISED TO AVOID W537. IFR TRAFFIC UNDER ATC JURISDICTION SHOULD ANTICIPATE CLEARANCE AROUND W537 AND CAE 1176. CAE 1155 WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. CAE 1316 & CAE 1318 WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. CAE 1177 WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. W537 ACTIVE, CAE 1176 CLOSED. SURFACE – FL390, 09 NOV 20:00 2010 UNTIL 10 NOV 01:00 2010. CREATED: 08 NOV 20:52 2010

Re:Hmmm ....

[Rockoon]

Failsafes are designed to fail.... safe. In other words, if they fail they aren't supposed to work at all.

If a failsafe fails, then it does not do so safely. If its not supposed to work at all, but the rocket launches anyways, thats called a failure of the fail-safes.

Re:Hmmm ....

[atrain728]

Locating a submarine that gave it's position so clearly, and in such close proximity to so many military installations, should be trivial. It's not like these things get away at 200mph and could be anywhere in an hour. 30 knots only gets you so far, so fast, and you can expect within a very short amount of time there'd be aircraft in the area dropping a lot of active sonar.

Getting US Navy floating assets to the scene would certainly take longer, but we can track these things so close to our coast from the air quite easily until they do so.

Even if the intended goal is not to sink it, you can be sure there'd still be a measured response.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Quiet_Desperation]

Contrails aren't that wide and don't appear singly.

WTF are you talking about? I've seen contrails that spread half way across the sky and turn into cirrus clouds when the conditions are right.

Not even sure what you mean by not appearing singly. Here you go - single contrail: http://www.flickr.com/photos/misterbucketspartytime/1681098779/

Re:Hmmm ....

[Quiet_Desperation]

Or maybe it was US Aiways flight 808 from Hawaii to Phoenix.

Re:Hmmm ....

[shikaisi]

I'm sure the launch was deliberate. Now, whether it was planned is a separate matter. Maybe some fault on a missile called for firing it to get rid of it, but that seems unlikely to me. Firing ICBMs is a VERY sensitive matter (if not coordinated with other major powers it certainly would trigger a serious alert and move towards nuclear readiness - not something ANYBODY wants to happen).

Although I hate to judge before all the facts are in, it's beginning to look like General Ripper exceeded his authority.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Teancum]

Correction:

If a failsafe fails in a dangerous way, it wasn't really designed properly as a failsafe, or more properly it wasn't really a genuine failsafe.

It isn't easy to engineer something to degrade gracefully, and for rocket in particular (or more generally when manipulating large amounts of energy), sometimes it isn't an easy or obvious solution in terms of making something that fails in a graceful manner where the damage to life, property, or the environment is minimized.

It is possible to engineer most devices to be operated safely or be able to give a bit of a warning to the operator to get the heck out of Dodge before they get killed. Overriding safety protocols is usually something that gets people killed or hurt badly precisely because you are operating outside of the proscribed limits. Of course sometimes you need to test a device on the extreme edge to see what it might do and if the safety protocol is justified too.

The main problem is when you have an operator using production equipment who decides to perform an engineering envelope test on a device where they are not taking the precautions necessary for such a test, nor are they going to be able to afford the resulting damage if such a test is performed.

That is precisely what happened with the Space Shuttles Columbia and Challenger, where they were operating out of the originally designed safety parameters, and people died as a result. The Columbia was especially sad as it was an engineering change that was not properly tested resulting from somebody concerned about the couple hundred pounds of "ozone destroying" chemicals that ended up killing those astronauts. Yup, that saved the environment, I suppose.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Magada]

It may very well have been.

I'm still waiting (a day later) for someone in the FAA to come out and say that.

What's so hard? They know exactly where the news helicopter was, they know exactly where US Airways 808 was and where it was going at the time. They also know what other helicopter was there (it appears in the film) so they know exactly which way the cameraman was looking.

So why in the name of Pete aren't they coming out and saying "well, from what we see on our radar replays it was flight 808 out of Hawaii. Now quit yer yappin'."

Re:Hmmm ....

[Rich0]

It might flood tubes or something like that, but it certainly wouldn't fire.

If at peace the best on-the-scene decision is to remain completely concealed. You don't want to give intel to the enemy on your capabilities.

Now, strategically giving away intel might be good politically, or it might be bad. Giving away that you can negate some of a nations strategic nuclear capability would probably be bad. You don't want them to develop countermeasures, you don't want to get them to build more nukes to keep an advantage, and you don't want them to get twitchier on the trigger out of fear of losing their deterrence. Strategically the US's best option is to have the ability to get rid of every opposing nuclear weapon, but make opponents feel very safe that their nuclear weapons are a potent deterrent.

Re:Hmmm ....

[miserere nobis]

I still disagree that it is trivial. We're talking about around 2000 square nautical miles of ocean after just the first hour traveling at 25 knots, and yes, it is near the coast, but still several hundred to a thousand feet of depth. That is a large grid, and by the time enough searchers are on scene to cover the whole thing, it is far larger. A lot really depends on how many ready-to-launch anti-submarine helicopters are close by, which, for any given spot on the coast, may well be zero. For that particular spot, I'd imagine the Navy has applicable assets, but they might not be on high alert ready to jump on the chase instantly. I agree there is a good chance of finding it, but I don't think it is trivial. I mean, for that matter, a nuclear submarine could hide motionless at the bottom in a good spot to get lost in ground noise for weeks, if it wanted to.

I also am pretty convinced that the "measured response" would be limited to pinging the heck out of the boat to harass them and let them know we found them.

The response to all this is getting weird, with people, including the military, implausibly claiming it was an airplane contrail-- a claim that ought to be 100% verifiable based on ground radar records, and yet nobody has come up with such records showing a plane in that spot.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Demonantis]

Thanks for the reply. I don't mind providing an article. Please note I wasn't saying that it is incorrect to use SLBM as a descriptor. I was merely defending the right to describe it as an ICBM. The two descriptions are not mutually exclusive so fas describing it one way does not prove that it can not be described the other way, as well.
Here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile#Modern_ICBMs; uses the Trident as an example for ICBMs and SLBMs.
And just to be fair if you consider wikipedia as an unreliable source; http://www.jstor.org/stable/2538595?seq=2; describes the Trident as a ICBM-range SLBM, which is what I am trying to explain.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Rockoon]

If a failsafe fails in a dangerous way, it wasn't really designed properly as a failsafe, or more properly it wasn't really a genuine failsafe.

Which is why you would test the fail-safes.. and sometimes if they are not properly designed.. they will FAIL!!

Now go back and re-read the first post you replied to, and observe that your reply is stupid.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Delusion_]

DeV?

Re:Hmmm ....

[GeekZilla]

Quite right. I thought about reading the full story but then something shiny distracted me.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Panaflex]

If you look at the beginning of the video, you'll notice there are two separate views of the launch. The bottom of the contrails and the arcs are significantly different - where definitely proves that whatever it was, was a near vertical launch.

Re:Hmmm ....

[LWATCDR]

Wikipedia I wouldn't really count on this case.
Notice the other article describes the Trident as an ICBM range SLBM but not as an ICBM alone.
Yes for the average person to say that it is an ICBM is no big deal but for an expert to use that term is wrong.
Think about the very name. Intercontinental means between continents.
The actual term SLBM has also changed over the years. When the Polaris was first produced the idea was to also mount them on ships as well. The USS Long Beach had mounts for Polaris launch tubes. SLBM orignaly stood for Sea Launched Balistic Missile but when the US decided to only mount them on Subs the name was changed.

Key to the technically correct term is the arm control agreements.
While land based missiles where counted based on range. In the arms control talks IRBMs and SRBMs where not counted or restricted at all in the SALT I and SALT II talks.
But all SLBMs where counted no matter what range they had.
The reason being that because they could be sailed up to a coast line even a 600 mile range missile was a strategic weapon.
Even in the latest arms control agreements SLBMs are in a different class then ICBMs.
SLBMs are allowed to carry MIRVs while ICBMs are not.
So yes you can be technically correct and say that the Trident is an ICBM ranged SLBM but it is technically incorrect to call it an ICBM.

And yes this is getting down in the extremely technical nitpicky range.
But when someone is putting out "expert opinions" on the news they better have every nit picked or I just do not trust them as a source.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Delusion_]

There was a chance you were someone I knew as a different nick (usually on IRC), who also used Wonko the Sane on rare occasions. My mistake, disregard.

Re:Hmmm ....

[atrain728]

I guess my point is that, at very least, you'd see the USN scrambling Anti-Submarine Warfare assets like mad trying to find the thing (if they believed it was launched by a foreign entity). As far as I can tell, that didn't happen. And if I let my suspicions do the talking, I'd suspect they didn't even know it happened until it was reported on the news.

This leads me to believe that it wasn't detected as a missile launch (which surely a foreign entity SLBM launch would have been). Therefore, I can only conclude that it was something they knew was going to happen (they launched it) or an optical illusion from a completely ordinary event (airplane contrails).

Re:Hmmm ....

[Suki I]

The "red phone" was just the covers on their iPhones. Michelle upgraded them to something from Prada.

Re:Hmmm ....

[ushering05401]

"I think we need another Sputnik as a kick in the pants."

You can't announce new tech right now unless you want the U.S. all over your nuts.

So your Sputnik is going to require an established Intel agency making the right deal or a splinter group getting ballsy enough to dare you to find out what you are seeing.

No one wants to debut anything, no one wants to be the next Oppenheimer. Many people will accept depopulation before further empowerment of existing players.

Meanwhile everything rots.

So, how about another Summer of Love instead... Let's opt for less penis and more commitment to sustainability. And if anyone wants to get on stage with socks stuffed into their blues and electric guitars wailing they should be pointed to the nearest RenFaire. Just my $.02

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Not fishy. The crieterion for permanent member status on the UN security council is "can start a global nuclear war if so desires." This is by design, and a hell of a good idea. Would you want such an entity NOT to be included in security matters in the UN's purview?

Actually the permanant security council for the UN was established during the first meeting of the UN in 1946 and the only permanant members are the US, China, Russia, France, and England. the so called allies of WW2, this list HAS NOT and to my knowledge CAN NOT change for any forseeable reason. Your assumption that being able to start a global war gets you a seat on the permanant council is flat wrong otherwise you would also see israel and iran on the permanant security council of the united nations.
            on a side note its kind of sad that the people who sell the world most of its guns and munitions are all permanant members of the UN security council, the US is the largest illegal arms dealer in the world but unfortunately are protected by UN trade laws and a BIG ASSED MILITARY

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

i doubt seriously that china or russia would need to make a show of force like this. for one china is crushing the usa just fine ecconomically. and we already know russia can shower us with multiple independant or MIRV technology warheads either from theyr own soil or within a couple hundred miles of our coast, and they know we know. therefore there would be NO REASON for either one of these nations to attempt such a thing and risk getting caught and having US marines on theyr doorstep in the next day or so.

musta been the damn aliens....

Re:Hmmm ....

[Quiet_Desperation]

Do they really have anything to "play back" or is that just something everyone is assuming?

What I don't get is how "contrail mistaken for missile", which has happened before a number of times, is so much less believable than "ZOMG! MYSTERY MISSILE! ACK!" Has the national lack of critical thinking really spun that far out of control?

The helicopter is in the foreground compared to the contrail due to the telephoto effect of the camera. It is completely unrealted to the contrail. Gah! This stuff is SIMPLE, people!

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

LAX.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonko, you were (are?) a bubblehead, right?

USS Hartford May 2000 - February 2006

It's my understanding that the Chinese are at least a generation or two behind us in terms of submarine technology. Even if they've received assistance from the Russians it would seem unlikely that they could construct an SSBN that could travel all the way across the Pacific without being tracked by the US Navy. If they did manage such a feat then I certainly hope that heads are rolling at Pearl Harbor and the Pentagon....

You don't understand how big the Pacific ocean is.

The only way that you stop an SSBN is to maintain a large fast attack fleet and track each and every one of them as they leave port and follow them until the return.

Isn't there a string of microphones across the entire Pacific Ocean for the very purpose of detecting enemy submarines headed towards the United States' West Coast?

Re:Hmmm ....

[Magada]

They do have records. They are needed and used for many things, from crash investigations to training.

I don't understand the excitement either. Surely there must be lots of contrails visible above the sea every day - lots of planes coming in?

Did someone say Missile?

[Monkeedude1212]

No one wants to take credit for it? Okay.

I'll take credit for it. If found please return it. Thanks.

Re:Did someone say Missile?

[camperdave]

I was going to take credit for it, however, after a moment's thought I realized that taking credit for firing a missile inside US coastal waters without proper approvals could land me in all sorts of hot water with the wrong sorts of government agencies. I'm glad you're willing to take that heat.

Re:Did someone say Missile?

[Monkeedude1212]

I'm glad you're willing to take that heat.

Of course, I'm Canadian! I'll take any heat I can get!

Re:Did someone say Missile?

[Dachannien]

I'll take credit for it. If found please return it. Thanks.

We'll be sure to, uh, send it your way. Or at least one of similar manufacture.

Re:Did someone say Missile?

[Anonymous Coward]

Skynet, my friend, has gone live.

However...why do I keep on visualizing Mike Myers?

Re:Did someone say Missile?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I did it! It was meant to strike LA but the Con Air guy and James Bond stopped me. Didn't even get the chance to make a ransom demand :(

Re:Did someone say Missile?

[UnknowingFool]

I confess! It was me. Off the coast of California. With a missile launcher.

Re:Did someone say Missile?

[shoehornjob]

You don't want it man. Per the "Drug Cartels" post above it was filled with their pot. Those people are gonna be pissed when they found out you have their product.

Re:Did someone say Missile?

[travdaddy]

Oh it's your's? Okay.

Here you go. Catch! You're welcome.

Re:Did someone say Missile?

[interkin3tic]

You got a license and registration for that? Has it been smogged? Hefty fines man. You must not be from California.

Re:Did someone say Missile?

[TheCarp]

I am Spartacus!

Re:Did someone say Missile?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a "right sort" of government agencies to get in hot water with?

I can't believe I've been doing it wrong this whole time...

Re:Did someone say Missile?

[Reece400]

According to the video, the previous launch from the Vanderburg airforce base was a 'space italia cosmos skynet satilite'... coincidence? I think not...

Re:Did someone say Missile?

[Teancum]

The launch happened in what is technically international waters, so "proper approvals" aren't really necessary except for U.S. citizens. Non-Americans would have to get approval from their respective government.

If you are an American, you are correct that some proper approvals and notices to various federal agencies would have to happen. The problems is even the U.S. Navy, if they are doing a live fire test, would also have to get some approvals from other federal agencies too or at least file notices of doing the test.

Re:Did someone say Missile?

[IrquiM]

Then let me help you

Re:Did someone say Missile?

[antdude]

o/~ Blame Canada! o/~ :)

Re:Did someone say Missile?

[MichaelSmith]

firing a missile inside US coastal waters without proper approvals could land me in all sorts of hot water

Cold saline water, head down, straight up the nose.

QE3

[NapalmV]

They're testing the "dollar cluster bomb" for the Quantitative Easing 3 phase. Bernanke reckoned that helicopters were not good enough.

Re:QE3

[afidel]

Of course not, with missiles we not only get to spread the cash but also stimulate the weapons sector of the economy directly at the same time.

Actually,

[Anonymous Coward]

It was me. I did it.

Re:Actually,

[Arthur Grumbine]

It was me. I did it.

No - I'm Spartacus!!

James Bond

[The MAZZTer]

Has the supervillian set his doomsday plot into motion?!?

Re:James Bond

[Vectormatic]

well, thats what we movie-go-ers get for letting MGM go bankrupt

Life imitates art

[jcrb]

How many movies are there where the villain sets out to start a war by launching an attack meant to look like it came from one of the super powers?

But seriously.... a SLBM was fired a few miles off our coast and we don't know where it came from?

Is the area around that launch site full of planes dropping SONAR buoys? It better damn well be if we don't know where this came form.

Re:Life imitates art

[CdBee]

Much more likely, it was some sort of prototype/enhanced/modified missile tested by the USN, and they won't admit it just because doing so would mean admitting theres a development programme going on (and anyone getting a radar track of its mision profile might be able to deduce things about it)

I understand that stealth aircraft were tested for years before the technology was publicly acknowledged

Re:Life imitates art

[Andy Dodd]

Most likely it was a classified test and the Navy representative question didn't have a need-to-know.

See post below from mp3LM - apparently NOTAMs were sent out for this area as part of an unspecified NAWC test.

Re:Life imitates art

[ColdWetDog]

We know where it came from. Just because you don't isn't a problem.

Signed,
Your Overlords

Re:Life imitates art

[Andy Dodd]

Never mind - someone did post a location of W-537, and it doesn't match the location stated by the news reports.

http://skyvector.com/?ll=34.03656120385772,-121.69918142437554&chart=24&zoom=5

Re:Life imitates art

[mujadaddy]

As I've posted below, a sub-launched Trident II gives a completely different trail (~1:20). They're 44 feet tall, though, so that's around the same ballpark of size. Testing a new solid-fuel system?

Re:Life imitates art

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine it's a secret test, but why on Earth would you do it near the coast? Why not just do it out in the ocean where it's substantially less public? I mean, it's supposed to be secret, why do it in plain view?

Re:Life imitates art

[Darkness404]

Then why would you launch it right next to one of the most populated areas in the US? If you were going to launch something like that why not take it to some overseas territories in the middle of the pacific and test it there? I mean, really, out of all the places to stage a launch you do it 30 some miles off the coast of a very populated city? Even though it is the US government, you would think they would be smarter than that.

Re:Life imitates art

[jd]

The technology wasn't acknowledged until a Congressman took a model kit of the Stealth Fighter onto the floor and demanded to know what the hell it was that the public could gawp at but Congress could not.

Re:Life imitates art

[Blakey Rat]

Jesus, you're right! I've seen this before... Star Trek VI!!

Quick, someone count the photon torpedoes!

Re:Life imitates art

[sirrunsalot]

But why not push it just a smidge farther out into the ocean and away from the second most populous city in the US? Or run the test at night? It's only news because it was caught on tape in broad daylight by a news helicopter.

Re:Life imitates art

[jcrb]

Fine it's a secret test, but why on Earth would you do it near the coast? Why not just do it out in the ocean where it's substantially less public? I mean, it's supposed to be secret, why do it in plain view?

Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?

Re:Life imitates art

[Anonymous Coward]

It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises.

Re:Life imitates art

[Minwee]

It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises.

Re:Life imitates art

[tchdab1]

From that miniscule clip, these untrained eyes really can't tell the difference in trails - they are both somewhat fan-shaped, expanding to 3 - 4 times the width of the vehicle. In the LA footage, the trail seems to snake quickly back and forth. The footage in your link is too close-up to see any of that, so I can't compare. I also can't tell if any more minor differences in detail (color? speed?) are due to the different ways the shots were taken. Could be the same to me.

Re:Life imitates art

[icebike]

Not different at all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkT3I6RDPkw&feature=related

Re:Life imitates art

[mujadaddy]

You're concentrating on the immediate effluvia of the missile, not the persistent remaining trail.

Re:Life imitates art

[icebike]

NOTAMs are not necessary when you know exactly where every plane in the sky is, and can time your launch to avoid them.

They are only necessary for launches that are time window critical, and aircraft must be warned out of the area.

And of course the US military is not required to issue any of these for secret operations over international waters.

Re:Life imitates art

[Anonymous Coward]

They are smarter than that.

by claiming its not them, it generates fear. which can help support an agenda.

simple.

Re:Life imitates art

[mujadaddy]

I'll concede the point that it's not as dramatically different as I originally thought, but those are definitely two different kinds of missiles (mishap notwithstanding).

Re:Life imitates art

[jittles]

Why would the USN test a prototype off the coast of LA? They'd either do it at China Lake (out in the middle of the Mojave desert) or they'd take it way out to sea where they could be a little more secret about it. That's the great thing about a ballistic missile submarine.

Re:Life imitates art

[gstoddart]

Much more likely, it was some sort of prototype/enhanced/modified missile tested by the USN, and they won't admit it just because doing so would mean admitting theres a development programme going on

As has been pointed out elsewhere, if you were trying to keep it a secret, would you launch it close enough to LA to have news helicopters film it?

I understand that stealth aircraft were tested for years before the technology was publicly acknowledged

Yes, at facilities that aren't publicly acknowledged to exist and under strict secrecy.

Top secret tests 35 miles off one of the biggest cities in the US seems kind of the opposite of stealthy. I don't entirely disagree with you, but it just seems a little showy for something meant to be secret.

Re:Life imitates art

[icebike]

But Trident is what the US uses. Brits too. The Royal navy footage is really old.

Re:Life imitates art

[Shivetya]

something that large just doesn't get launched near a major metropolitan area to test.

The plume on that missile was very large, so one has to assume it came from the US Navy, or someone similarly equipped.

I doubt it was a secret test, most likely the office contacted at the Pentagon doesn't have permission to release the information. The worst case scenario is that no one takes credit and the Pentagon lets conspiracy theory people take over. Launching a ballistic missile from close to US shores at someone else would be a very dangerous move for any nation. If it isn't ours, some heads are going to roll that it could take place. If it is ours, someone is still going to get the roll over for being so daft as to let it get out of hand

Re:Life imitates art

[JRHelgeson]

When they need to launch a classified project, they will create a cover story to explain what it is beforehand. "Tomorrow we will be launching the ExoStat-1 satellite which carries a scientific payload to monitor [XYZ]..." People will say, "ok" and go back to sleep. To not have a cover story at the ready will only create more interest and speculation, which is exactly what is happening now.

Re:Life imitates art

[Vectormatic]

you dont test a super-secret missile that you dont want anyone knowing about, 30 miles of the coast. You do that sort of stuff in the middle of the pacific, way outside the normal shipping/aircraft routes

Re:Life imitates art

[hesaigo999ca]

I think it more likely it was meant as a demonstration that such devices are on US soil and not being controlled by the GOV. of course they wont comment, they do not want to alarm the public.....

US Gov.> "Hey, at any time, someone could add a small type bomb to the end of this thing, and instead of letting it fall into the ocean, would aim for schools and downtown."

US Public> Aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!

Re:Life imitates art

[Mysticalfruit]

If that was the case, you'd go out in the middle of the Pacific far away from any prying eyes and test it at a place like area 51. Launching off the coast of the California is rather public. Looking at the video it *looks* like a SLBM from my untrained eyes, but who knows.

Re:Life imitates art

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe someone was in a hurry to get it launched and there was no time to sail to the nearest shallow pacific territory. Maybe Hu dared Obama while they were having lunch. Who knows?

Maybe there will be an answer, but we can bet that it will be a half-truth at best.

Re:Life imitates art

[CdBee]

So actually testing it in daylight, within eyesight of a massive population centre, is quite a good way of denying responsibility or creating doubt....

Tactically, anything thats so improbable to be unthinkable should be high on the list of things to try first.

Re:Life imitates art

[Teancum]

You mean something like the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Test Site? This site is where it is at precisely because it is far from major international shipping lanes and even most pleasure craft by private individuals. It would seem like firing a missile just a short distance away from Los Angeles would be not just a bad idea, but nearly the worst possible site in terms of trying to stay away from commercial shipping and pleasure craft, or to keep a test "secret".

Re:Life imitates art

[bananaquackmoo]

Just because its populated doesn't mean there aren't plenty of military bases doing missile testing. I can name at least 2 within 100 miles of me (in coastal CA) that actively and publicly test.

Re:Life imitates art

[Yvanhoe]

I see some possibilities, but all kind of weird :
- Some country wanted to say "don't fuck with me America, I can fire missiles 35 miles from your coast". Someone like North Korea, China or Iran. Imagine the impact on the population. Except they didn't revendicate it. Maybe in a few days ?
- Incompetence of the Navy that proceeded to a launch without them being able to say why it was launched. Or even a total misfire.
- Could this have been a counter-missile ? Part of a test or part of a real interception ?

All in all, I find the lack of article in mainstream press disturbing. Especially if this is really an ICBM.

Re:Life imitates art

[CdBee]

For what its worth the theory about it being a jet contrail seen end-on appearing to be a vertical launch column (easy viewpoint for the helicopter, never seen from the ground) is now starting to convince me

Re:Life imitates art

[Vectormatic]

you dont do that with top-secret stuff you dont want anyone seeing. In this day and age of tubes, twitter and youtube, it poses a very serious risk of letting your enemy see things you dont want seen

my bad

[circletimessquare]

i went to get lunch for the whole crew and i had to carry those 3 cups as well as the sandwiches and i just had to put the sandwich bag down

yeah, i know i should have looked at the control panel and see if the bag would shift and hit any switches, but i got lunch. you go get lunch next time mr. high and mighty

and so what if i took novosibirsk. whoever heard of that place anyway? i can't even pronounce it. sounds like i did the world a favor

don't look at me like that, i'm outta here. get your damn lunch next time

It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[mp3LM]

http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/e3gf3/a_missile_was_launched_off_the_california_coast/c14zqpm

NOTAM for LA. KZLA LOS ANGELES A2832/10 - THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS ARE REQUIRED DUE TO NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER WEAPONS DIVISION ACTIVATION OF W537. IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY, ALL NON-PARTICIPATING PILOTS ARE ADVISED TO AVOID W537. IFR TRAFFIC UNDER ATC JURISDICTION SHOULD ANTICIPATE CLEARANCE AROUND W537 AND CAE 1176. CAE 1155 WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. CAE 1316 & CAE 1318 WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. CAE 1177 WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. W537 ACTIVE, CAE 1176 CLOSED. SURFACE - FL390, 09 NOV 20:00 2010 UNTIL 10 NOV 01:00 2010. CREATED: 08 NOV 20:52 2010

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[mujadaddy]

Wrong date. November 9 is today, not last night.

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[Brett Buck]

It was Nov 9 GMT.

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[ColdWetDog]

Wrong date. November 9 is today, not last night.

Hah. You think last night was interesting.

Just you wait...

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[locofungus]

Being in the UK, who are currently on GMT, I can tell you that it's not yet 20:00 on 9th Nov. Not for another 2 hours.

If these times are local times then it's even worse.

Either there's been a mega screw up and the missile was launched early (or the announcement was late) or this is for something else.

Tim.

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[mujadaddy]

...is that really what you're going with?

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[_Sprocket_]

Remember - the Internet is killing investigative journalism.

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[sirrunsalot]

That explains it then! They must've just bumped the date button while setting their clocks back an hour this weekend. I just showed up an hour early for a meeting and felt dumb enough. I played it cool. But if I'd launched an ICBM ahead of schedule you can bet I'd deny it too.

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[EricWright]

As of this posting, it is currently 09 NOV 2010, 18:33 GMT. Try again.

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[AhabTheArab]

It was Nov 9 20:00 GMT? That's in the future. About 1h 20m from now.

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[icebike]

Why would you have a problem with that explanation?

ALL NOTAMS are in GMT time. You expect them to change this world wide rule just for you?

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[RoTNCoRE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Nicolas_Island Could be totally wrong, my knowledge of California geography isn't so great, but apparently the military test launches from here once in a while, even this year.

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[idontgno]

You're missing the point. No one is contesting that NOTAMs are timestamped in ZULU. No one is arguing it's a bad idea. No one disputes this at all.

The actual argument is that the NOTAM you cite isn't applicable, because this launch occurred at "at around 5 p.m. Pacific time"... or about 01Z 9 October. Yes, the date is right. But that NOTAM wasn't effective yet, and wouldn't be for another 19 hours after the fact.

Seriously. When you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, stop digging.

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[AB3A]

If you want to know where the President, Vice President, or Speaker of the House will be before the news story breaks, just read the TFR NOTAMs from the FAA. To enforce the laws against flying in temporary flight restriction areas, they have to let the flying public know at least 24 hours in advance.

Notice that this NOTAM is only valid up to 39,000 Feet MSL (FL390). This may have been a big missile, but I doubt that it was headed for space. If it were, the NOTAM would have gone all the way to FL600 (the limit of enforceable airspace).

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[juggledean]

Um, this notice refers to a time still in the future. It could be in response to last night's event but it doesn't shed much light on the mystery.

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[gstoddart]

"It was Nov 9 GMT." ...is that really what you're going with?

Er, how about swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and refracted the light from Venus?

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[icebike]

Dude: I did not cite any NOTAM.

If you can't follow a thread stop posting.

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[jpmorgan]

If you look at the other date, the NOTAM was created a couple hours before the launch. The timing is suspicious, but bizarre.

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[geekoid]

October?

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[Thud457]

Don't try to confusle me with your high-falutin' words, it's pelicans, all the way up, same as in town.

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[ChaoticPup]

So a warning that covers a timeframe *today* somehow explains a missile launched *yesterday*? Ummm... try again.

The US Navy test range for sud-launched ICBMs is off the coast of San Diego, well south of the point of this launch. Been there, have the t-shirt.

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[idontgno]

Good point. My brain is stuck in last month. But the NOTAM is effective 20Z 9 November. Which 19 hours after the event.

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[idontgno]

Good grief, now I accidentally an important word.

"Which is 19 hours after the event."

Aaaand, "Preview" button.... OK.

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad to hear that NOTAMs use GMT/UTC. But what kind of date/time format have they adopted??
DAY MONTH HOUR:MINUTE YEAR
What is the rationale for that?

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[stephanruby]

Dumb? The only thing your message proves is that, according to the time-stamps of this order at least, that they're currently hunting down this thing (or since it's probably far gone by now, that they're looking for any evidence that my have been left behind).

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

So someone messed up the time. Thus the incident.

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[BobMcD]

If you look at the other date, the NOTAM was created a couple hours before the launch.

The timing is suspicious, but bizarre.

Even if it were created a couple hours before, why bother at all? There may not have been time enough to get everyone safely out of the area with that small of a window. Is there a minimum?

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[Dr.Syshalt]

An easy explanation: admin from India has messed up timezone settings on the missile computer and set TZ to "Delhi".

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

This NOTAM is for the *response*.

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[DerekLyons]

NOTAMS use GMT for their times...

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[anton_kg]

are you confused by upper case? "until 10" is after 8 and 9, obviously.

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot about the time change - you move the calendar back one day in the fall - spring forward, fall back ... duh.

my apologies if you are a foreigner - it is something we do here in the good ole US of A to keep the traffic screwed up.

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

This NOTAM is only up to flight level 390 (39,000ft) - I guess missles just stop there, right?

Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb

[Falconhell]

Perhaps it was lauched using the alarm function on an iphone? Not working very well these days I am told.

Solid fuel, for sure...

[mujadaddy]

That is a *big* rocket. Solid fuel, for sure.

I'd say that it's too BIG to have come out of a sub, but there doesn't seem to be a more likely prospect. Will we have to wait for Obama's Asia trip to end for the Navy to own up to this?

Re:Solid fuel, for sure...

[mujadaddy]

Trident II's are 44 feet tall, which is a good ballpark for this object, but their 'trail looks completely different (~1:20 in the vid).

New type?

Re:Solid fuel, for sure...

[jd]

Since all you need is a sealed tube with the missile inside it, a sub could deposit such a device on the sea floor. The sub needn't be the actual launch platform. If the US has mastered the ability to do that, it would certainly shake things up some. Tracking subs (a major effort by most nations) suddenly gets a whole lot less effective if it doesn't have to be where the missile it launches is. Which would require the ability to communicate over a significant range underwater, which would itself shake things up.

Another consideration is that this might be a warning to Britain, rather than potentially hostile nations. Remember, Britain isn't upgrading its Trident missile system - something the US is very angry over. (The DoD was depending on that money to fund its fleet of luxury cruises.) Advertising new launch systems and/or new missiles at this precise moment may be intended to shake things up in the UK and persuade the British Government to find more money.

Re:Solid fuel, for sure...

[mujadaddy]

Wow, that's VERY interesting, jd. The prosaic Defense Contractor explanation slightly less so than the "drop nuke" point, but still.

Somebody figure out how deep that bit of the ocean is for us.

Actually, ULF comm with the dropped nuke pod would be sufficient to trigger a launch confirmation, wouldn't you think?

Re:Solid fuel, for sure...

[icebike]

Not different at all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkT3I6RDPkw&feature=related

Re:Solid fuel, for sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

No-one in their right minds would even consider such a course of action unless they were preparing for imminent Armageddon (as in days, not weeks). Leaving a nuke unattended for any period of time? HUGE risks.

Re:Solid fuel, for sure...

[gfreeman]

Considering the austerity measures currently in place in the UK, I very much doubt there'll be much Trident upgrading in the next decade.

Re:Solid fuel, for sure...

[jd]

There's an unattended hydrogen bomb somewhere in a swamp in North Carolina, and enough unattended enriched plutonium in the Irish Sea to make several nukes.

Also, if you're testing a system you only need the missile to weigh the right amount. Nobody in their right minds would use a real warhead on a practice missile.

As for leaving a nuke unattended, remember that most navies are moving to stealth technology of one sort or another. There is no significant risk in leaving a missile that nobody can find in a stretch of ocean nobody would look in.

Besides, the point of a deterrant is not so that you would actually use such-and-such a system, but that your opponent knows you could.

Re:Solid fuel, for sure...

[jd]

That depends - if this is actually a tactic by the US to shake UK confidence, the British might try very hard to find the money somehow. The little surviving UK industry is heavily dependent on the US, giving the US significant leverage.

Also, bear in mind that even if the UK really can't get the money, the US DoD may well still try to intimidate the UK. I sincerely doubt the US defence contractors or the Pentagon are as concerned with a financially viable Britain as they are with improving their own balance sheets.

Re:Solid fuel, for sure...

[gfreeman]

The govt in the UK is a coalition, the minor party would not allow extended defence spending and so such a move would spark a No Confidence vote, and in the resulting General Election the Conservatives would be painted by every other party as Evil.

There's no way you can convince the UK voter that belts must tighten even more while spending money on more military, and a UK govt will listen to the voter before any other foreign power at the moment.

Re:Solid fuel, for sure...

[jd]

Perhaps, but in such an event Labour would still lose (Gordon Brown and Tony Blair are too fresh in people's minds), there's bugger-all chance the Liberal Democrats would win, which means that the Conservatives might actually secure an all-out victory.

Well, either that or they'll form a coalition with the Official Monster Raving Looney Party, who would likely win seats if it went to a general election right now.

Re:Solid fuel, for sure...

[gfreeman]

For the Conservatives to win would mean them doing better in the next election than in the last. Unbelievable if they poured money into Trident at the expense of the NHS and social care.

IMO, most likely outcome would be a coalition, this time LibLab now that Brown has gone.

My fear is that in the current confusion, people would vote BNP.

Re:Solid fuel, for sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

That h-bomb is in US soil and it ain't going anywhere and it'd probably fizzle after all this time (tritium etc etc). An ICBM in a can, ready to go, is quite a different proposition. You CAN start WW3 with one of those, even if it's not armed with a nuclear warhead.

Re:Solid fuel, for sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, such a system, if made properly, could be dropped from cargo planes in shipping lanes.

Re:Solid fuel, for sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

The upgrade we brits were supposedly going to get was just new subs, it would have been the same missiles afaik.

Missile defence

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Pentagon didn't know about it why didn't they shoot it down? Looks like it boosted within site of Vandenberg AFB.

Re:Missile defence

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean sight? Because "site" would have a substantially different meaning here.

Where'd it go?

[Utini420]

Anybody know where this thing came down? The article says nothing about the course of the missile, just its start point.

Also, seems to me like the "show of force" for Asia's benefit explanation is pretty lame; wouldn't you rather do that over there where, ya know, they could see it?

Re:Where'd it go?

[paperdiesel]

Exactly. The whole time I'm watching the news coverage and reading the article (crazy, I know...), I'm thinking "Ok, so where did this thing END UP, exactly?"

It seems to me that finding out where it went -- and what happened when it got where it was going -- are just as important as knowing where it came from. Why is no one asking about that?

Re:Where'd it go?

[Anonymous Coward]

It just launched. Takes between 25 and 55 minutes for ICBMs to reach their target usually, depending on trajectory.
So within the hour we should know.

Re:Where'd it go?

[DaveAtFraud]

Anybody know where this thing came down? ...

My bet is Kwajalein. The Navy spokesdweeb wasn't cleared to know about the launch.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:Where'd it go?

[Darkness404]

Um, this launched Monday night, as in, last night. And judging from Google's headlines, there have been reports by news outlets from 4 hours or longer ago. This is /., we get the news late.

Re:Where'd it go?

[sirrunsalot]

It probably struck a floating buoy somewhere in the North Pacific. I don't think ICBM tests typically involve strategic targets or armed nucular [sic] devices, so I wouldn't worry—we'll probably never know.

Re:Where'd it go?

[noc007]

Mine too. Plus, the Navy spokesperson probably can't represent the activities of the Army.

IIRC, we regularly randomly select a Minuteman ICBM, remove the nuclear payload, replace the payload with a bunch of telemetry and tracking equipment, and launch it off the coast of California into Kwaj's lagoon. This kills two birds with one stone: it tests the missile to see if there might be any defects in the existing stockpile and it also tests the tracking equipment we have in Kwaj. One could argue that it also removes a nuclear weapon from our arsenal to comply with some treaty, though I don't recall what we actually do with the nuclear payload afterwards.

Re:Where'd it go?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

It took out a cruise ship nearby in the pacific: http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/carnival-splendor-cruise-ship-rescue/story?id=12095096

What a cool weapon to use against enemy invading forces' ships: knock out their engines and power, and leave their troops adrift. The troops on the ship riot when the hot buffet doesn't get refilled.

Re:Where'd it go?

[MachineShedFred]

For a proper show of force, you don't show them the launch. You show them the landing.

If this was a USN launch, they were likely trying to hit some 55-gallon drums with targets painted on them in the South Pacific. Here's an example of a "show of force" which is pretty damn effective: a Minuteman-III launch from Vandenberg. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChhYOO1s-nY

The video actually has footage of the dummy warheads striking in the Marshall Islands. You don't ever want to witness this.

FYI - it's not enough for the missile crew to put a hundred-kiloton warhead within yards of the intended target, they want to put it right in your lap.

Re:Where'd it go?

[DaveAtFraud]

That's kind of my thought. Plus, Vandenberg AFB has all the telemetry acquisition facilities to monitor the launch.

After my post I realised an even more likely explanation is something like what you described that we at least used to do with Minuteman ICBMs and a launch crew. Vandenberg has a complete Minuteman launch control facility (LCF) where they would put the crew just like they were on alert and have them go through the whole process of firing the missile. I'm thinking the Navy may have had a Trident boomer go through the same process. It was routine enough that nobody bothered to tell the spokesdweeb.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:Where'd it go?

[John Hasler]

> Anybody know where this thing came down?

At an airport, just like most other aircraft.

Re:Where'd it go?

[Anonymous Coward]

turns out that you're wrong on three counts here. just shut the fuck up and learn to listen instead of running your pathetic mouth. you know nothing.

Sounds like...

[the_one_wesp]

Lt. Chillders had his woman down there, demonstrating how to "launch a missle," and somehow, through some "unknown act" the big red button got pushed.

Gilly...!!!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I hate that sketch, too.

Backup your data,

[sbenson]

Maybe the EMP did not go off this time. You should back up all that pirated porn if you live in L.A.

where did it *go*?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, umm, where did it go? Just splash down in the pacific somewhere? I'm sure other first world nations know exactly who was there to pick it up.

Seeing as DHS Threat adviso remains at just Orange

[mysidia]

It is obviously some super-secret government/military thing.

If it was not sanctioned by the military, we would be at high alert right now, right?

No! The OTHER big red button!

[VortexCortex]

Hurray, an ICBM got launched! WWIII is here!
Finally, my years of hording supplies and fortifying my re-purposed Y2K bunker are going to pay off!

I just hope some game developers survive... I can't wait to play the video games that will be based on this new Earth-shattering war!

Re:No! The OTHER big red button!

[uncledrax]

Actually you'd get the whole Battlefield Call of Honor franchises instead depicting the now-historical day-to-day life of a mandate person in a society full of cell phones and face book.

The crappy part is there likely won't be enough infrastructure active and functional to populate many MP servers.

Re:No! The OTHER big red button!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cataclysm is only 27 days away!!!

FAA NOTAM

[Nidi62]

KZLA LOS ANGELES A2832/10 – THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS ARE REQUIRED DUE TO NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER WEAPONS DIVISION ACTIVATION OF W537. IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY, ALL NON-PARTICIPATING PILOTS ARE ADVISED TO AVOID W537. IFR TRAFFIC UNDER ATC JURISDICTION SHOULD ANTICIPATE CLEARANCE AROUND W537 AND CAE 1176. CAE 1155 WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. CAE 1316 & CAE 1318 WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. CAE 1177 WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. W537 ACTIVE, CAE 1176 CLOSED. SURFACE – FL390, 09 NOV 20:00 2010 UNTIL 10 NOV 01:00 2010. CREATED: 08 NOV 20:52 2010 It's not a mystery, it's been planned and announced.

Re:FAA NOTAM

[Wonko the Sane]

Check those dates and compared to the date of the event in TFA.

Re:FAA NOTAM

[mujadaddy]

Today is November 9th. The warning is for November 9th. The launch was last night.

Re:FAA NOTAM

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that NOTAMS are in UTC time not local time.

Re:FAA NOTAM

[Nethemas the Great]

Times are in UTC not WST. They match.

Re:FAA NOTAM

[canajin56]

It's not even 8PM UTC on Nov 9th yet, how can it match 5 PM fucking yesterday? Good math there champ.

Re:FAA NOTAM

[Nethemas the Great]

You're right, I've had my head stuck in the computer too long. I got my days off, was thinking it was the 10th already.

Re:FAA NOTAM

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=09+Nov+20:00+2010+UTC+in+PST : Am I doing something wrong? Cause that doesn't look like it matches to me... Also, why would LA be using Australian Western Time (WST)?

Re:FAA NOTAM

[mujadaddy]

...and of course, the people who can't even keep the date straight get the mod points. Eh, I've gotten one, I suppose I should stop while I'm ahead. I just want to know what's the deal with this rocket. Missile.

Re:FAA NOTAM

[Anonymous Coward]

Are those times local or UTC?

Re:FAA NOTAM

[Anonymous Coward]

The military will operate within a time window when doing test launches. Normally, it's based on weather and visibility if they're going to use a chase plane ( in the event it's a cruise missile ). Besides, they don't just fire blindly. Every radar system is watching everything within X miles of the launch site. They don't punch out a bird if the launch area isn't clear. The FAA notice is the " please don't fly around the folks shooting missiles " statement. However, if the area is verified clear of air and sea traffic, they will fire when conditions are optimal for it.

Not really all that big a deal. We test various missile platforms all the time. Hell, we even shot a tail-fin camera equipped Tomahawk off the coast of the LA area and it flew out to White Sands, NM. Chase planes and all. Would have been an interesting 911 call to hear for sure as the group crossed I-5 :D

Re:FAA NOTAM

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh, obviously they were testing NOTAM, and they failed.

Mythbusters

[Tr3vin]

Missile firing off the coast of California? Gotta be the Mythbusters. This week's myth was that you could easily build and fire a missile near the US without being caught. Myth confirmed!

Re:Mythbusters

[bmo]

If it was Mythbusters, it was not a rocket, but another water heater.

--
BMO

Re:Mythbusters

[Volante3192]

When those two are involved, 'rocket' and 'water heater' are interchangable.

Re:Mythbusters

[dekarguy]

Don't forget the spare waterheaters.

Re:Mythbusters

[Ellis D. Tripp]

Packed with Mentos, Diet Coke, salami, and thermite?

Re:Mythbusters

[kenrblan]

They probably tweaked the design on the confederate rocket.

Re:Mythbusters

[KingAlanI]

"Let's see how investigating this myth can possibly be construed to involve as much launching something or blowing something up as possible."

Re:Mythbusters

[Anonymous Coward]

Who ARE the Mythbusters?

Re:Mythbusters

[Volante3192]

FWIW, the methods behind their experiments are usually pretty good.

The catch is...whether or not the experiments answer the question posed.

Re:Mythbusters

[KingAlanI]

Yeah, they sometimes veer off topic to do something cool, even if that 'something cool' is properly investigated.

How are you gentlemen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone set up us the missle!

Re:How are you gentlemen?

[KingAlanI]

"Somebody set us up the bomb" came *before* "How are you, gentlemen", with several lines in between.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zero_Wing#Introduction

This seems like the kind of fundamentally important Slashdot issue on which I will earn a +1 Informative. :P

Engage!

[digitaldc]

"It could be a test-firing of an intercontinental ballistic missile from a submarine to demonstrate, mainly to Asia, that we can do that," speculated Ellsworth.

Just because, you know, we outsourced all our missile manufacturing to China and we just weren't that sure it would work.

Re:Engage!

[Combatso]

may contain traces of lead?

Missile of the coast of California?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the whole silicon valley decided to offshore itself?

It was mine

[Dyinobal]

It was mine, I was launching my orbital Laster beam.

Re:It was mine

[bmo]

>Laster beam

Well, I've got a firster beam, but it keeps getting modded down.

--
BMO

Re:It was mine

[daid303]

But there are no sharks to attach it to in space!

Not my secret base

[phantomfive]

GUYS, I want you to KNOW, it is NOT the location of my secret evil lair. Or ANyone else's. THere IS noevil Lair. really. Don't come searching. Please. The squid are causing enough problems. I mean. Ignore that.

Re:Not my secret base

[Monkeedude1212]

I'm onto you, hiding secret messages in your post. Look at the Capital Letters, seems too odd . Rearranging the letters I get this:

  I KNOW THIS NOTION GUYS DIAL TIP

Tip, which is of course is 847 on the phone, which is of course the area code for Illinois!

LOOK OUT! THERE'S A MISSILE HEADING FOR ILLINOIS!

Re:Not my secret base

[Anonymous Coward]

Squid? Sheesh, well there's your problem. They aren't nearly as smart as sharks when it comes to defending an evil lair from uninvited intruders.

I mean, based on, uh, what I've read.

Re:Not my secret base

[clyde_cadiddlehopper]

And area code 478 (IPT) is Macon, Georgia. But there just isn't anything there that would be worth wasting a bottle rocket, let alone a solid fuel propelled missile with the optional deluxe "hey look at me I have a ten mile long contrail glowing in the sunset like a gigantic peacock's ass" contrail. Sleep well, Macon, you are safe tonight.

Re:Not my secret base

[miserere nobis]

...and Rod Blagojevich goes from criminal to hero in an instant, as he donates his hair for use as a missile shield.

Re:Not my secret base

[lennier]

Plus, you can harvest a handy Alzheimer's cure from their brains so you can extend your reign of hydro-terror indefinitely.

BRB, just lost another three wranglers.

SPECTRE

[elton]

It's obvious who it is: SPECTRE

Re:SPECTRE

[k6mfw]

well call the Brits... damn, they just lost their best agent in Hong Kong. OK, what's all them ships carrying lox (salmon?) to a port in Japan?

Just wait for the USAF to deny it

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wait for the USAF to deny it, and we'll know it was theirs.

It's just a jet contrail

[Muad'Dave]

An expert named Brian on the seesat-l list says:

This pops up every once in a while. Seen it myself.

It's an airliner leaving a contrail that's being lit by the setting sun.
It appears to be going straight up because it's coming straight towards
the observer from over the horizon.

If we had a time, direction, and location of the viewpoint it would
not be difficult to determine which flight it was.

The contrail more than likely also shows on satellite weather imagery.

As many of us here know who have observed known missile launches, this
thing is moving WAAAAAAAAY too slow.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[allawalla]

I am not sure how you qualified Brian as an expert... but this explanation sure sounds good.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[echucker]

... and if his theory is correct, why wasn't that information already released to the general public?

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[0123456]

An expert named Brian on the seesat-l list says:

This pops up every once in a while. Seen it myself.

It's an airliner leaving a contrail that's being lit by the setting sun.

Yeah, I've seen that myself, one time when driving... I could see a 'smoke trail' rising from the horizon, but after traveling a few more miles it was clearly just an aircraft contrail creating an optical illusion.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[DrugCheese]

Brian is wrong. Maybe he didn't view the video but it's very clear cut that it is NOT an airliner.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[Volante3192]

Well, the stock footage isn't an aircraft, obviously.

Doesn't really show the mystery object that well.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[blair1q]

Just from looking at the picture I know that's not right.

Parallax on the contrail tells me the object is receding.

So it started in the lower-left corner of the picture.

Which means the helicopter taking the picture was above the contrail.

I'd be willing to bet that no helicopter has ever viewed a contrail of significant length from above.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[ThePhish]

+1 to DrugCheese.

This brian has not seen the video, as it becomes immediately apparent that the perspective places the object going away from the viewers, and not travelling towards.

It appears to be in the shape of Bob's Big Boy, sir.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[Anonymous Coward]

That was not a jet contrail, are you f'ing blind?

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[Araghorn]

It's just a Qantas plane with an engine on fire.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[Muad'Dave]

Because a covert missile launch is so much more interesting (and newsworthy), perhaps?

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[Chelloveck]

Seems reasonably likely to me. My second-place suspicion is that it's an amateur high-power rocketry buff testing something home-built. I'd look for video of the launch posted to YouTube later today, unless the unexpected media attention has rattled the guy.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[Volante3192]

I think I found it:

http://goes.gsfc.nasa.gov/goeswest-lzw/california/vis/

Start at
1011081945G11I01.tif 08-Nov-2010 15:03 506K
and watch the contrail go south across the coast through
1011082200G11I01.tif 08-Nov-2010 17:23 484K

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[northstarlarry]

I have absolutely no clue what I'm supposed to be looking for, but the availability of these photos is really cool. Thanks for the link!

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at Flightaware, nothing landed at KLAX coming from anything close to West around 5pm. Of course, it could have been overflying and landing somewhere in the middle of the country.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[jittles]

I didn't watch a video here but I've watched space shuttle launches on multiple occasions from about 100 miles away. From that distance the shuttle looks pretty slow too.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you explain the boosters breaking off it? You can very clearly see three cylindrical objects with flames still coming out breaking off the UFO, exactly like you see coming off a NASA missile launch. I get your theory but airplanes don't usually have cylindrical, flaming booster rockets with falling off of them.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't make any sense....watch the video. There is billowing of exhaust in a fashion that clearly indicates rocket rather than jet....and the bright light at the top of the column doesn't comport with an aircraft at all. The column is also way too vertical.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it looks like CBS added an actual video of a rocket being fired and interplayed it side by side with footage of the actual UFO. W.T.F. The actual UFO does look like it's coming up from the horizon so you may be right...

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[Combatso]

It has been.. but "nothing happened today off the coast!" isn't really a ratings grabber.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[Reziac]

"Carter, I can see my house!"

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[Volante3192]

I made a really primitive animated gif out of those shots:

http://www.sinecreations.com/GOES.gif

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[sunking2]

I like how he himself points out we have no time, direction, or distance yet somehow he is able to discern that it is going too slow.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[khallow]

This brian has not seen the video, as it becomes immediately apparent that the perspective places the object going away from the viewers, and not travelling towards

I looked at the video. All we can tell from it is that the object is moving to upper right. It could be moving towards or away from our viewpoint, we don't have the perspective to tell. Originally, I too thought it was a rocket contrail, but it is consistent with jet contrails and there's satellite evidence that this could be a jet contrail.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[hackerjoe]

I cannot for the life of me see what you're talking about. I found the area -- about halfway between the Channel Islands and Catalina Island, indicated by the news spot -- and it's flat black for the entire period. I see a lot of clouds that sort of look a little like contrails all over everywhere else.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[lgw]

A picture does not have parallax. You get that from two pictures taken for different places. Perhaps you meant perspective? But that's misleading - the contrail looks wider to the lower left because it's older, not because it's closer.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[Quiet_Desperation]

Release what? People at the Navy probably spent the first hours trying to figure out WTF everyone was babbling about, because from their POV there was no missile. At the very least they have to go to whatever records/radar scans NORAD (or whatever) keeps and try to figure out what people think they saw. This isn't a Hollywood movie where All World Data For All Time is available when Tony Stark mumbles a pass phrase.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[bughunter]

As many of us here know who have observed known missile launches, this
thing is moving WAAAAAAAAY too slow.

Seconded. As an engineer for various companies that do such things, I've witnessed launches from San Nicholas, from Vandenberg, Kwaj, Alaska and Hawaii. There are several things visually wrong with the snippets of video I've been able to find online:

1: The contrail is too "solid" looking. It lacks the crazy dispersion that a rising plume sees almost immediately as the launch vehicle passes thru different layers of the atmosphere. Winds move at different speeds and at different directions in the different layers, immediately shearing a rocket plume. Contrails, however, generally stay in the same layer, and remain continuous for much longer. Sometimes very long.

2: The lighting is too uniform. An ascending plume from a launch just after sunset shows a "rainbow" of colors from sunlight refracted through the atmosphere and from grazing incidence reflection from the ocean. This plume shows none of that.

3: Its moving far, far too slowly. Even a suborbital missile that will travel only 600 or so miles moves faster on ascent. They move startlingly fast across the sky.

These clues tell me that it was an aircraft moving horizontally, not a missile moving vertically. The perspectives involved with very long objects in the sky can be very deceiving. You can't trust your eyes.

No one is questioning the appellation "missile" -- the first question asked should be, "What was it?" -- not "Whose missile was it?"

I wager that within hours, NOAA or someone will release a satellite picture showing the plume as a lateral contrail originating from the West.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[blair1q]

You are correct, I meant perspective.

I ain't buying it about the wider=older thing, though.

It takes some pretty special circumstances to make a contrail spread anisotropically. Once the hot vapor from the engines has expanded, condensed, and been contained by the vortices from the wings, it's a pretty stable situation with little spread unless something else gets involved.

really cool pick at an iffy link here:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rkPt7JME0-8/SbZndqgc2bI/AAAAAAAAAWI/8UVhtw4fwOU/s320/boeing+747+jumbo+contrail.jpg

I want that in a glossy 8x10 for my office.

To get the sort of triangular spread you're thinking of you'd need to have the contrail in a wind-shear, and wind-shear means turbulent flight, and a pilot wouldn't hang out in that for that long, so it should happens to the tails of a contrail, not to the whole contrail starting from the head, as we're looking at in the article's picture.

sheared contrail:
http://www.mdbsite.com/skies/contrails/info-3.jpg

So I'm sticking with perspective, not diffusion.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[bughunter]

I'd be modding you up if I hadn't already posted above.

People like ThePhish and DrugCheese are so certain that they can trust their eyes. But they're wrong. Our visual cortex is wired to parse perspective for things on a much smaller scale. Things on the scale of this object confuse the eye, and the mind. You can't trust your eyes in this situation.

For instance, these lines are all parallel lines, but they certainly don't look like it, and if you saw them in person you'd swear they were all originating from a point on the horizon... as if God were standing over there in all his glory. But they aren't.

I'm sorely disappointed that so many smart people on /. are failing to question the assumption that the object is a missile.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of the recent "UFO over Norway". Major US News networks had this on the news.

If you google for the photo's they look totally fake and photo-shopped. It's hard to tell exactly what you are seeing.

If you see the video it looks like a ground based death ray or something, video viewed from other perspectives (it was filmed by dozens of people and news agencies) you can see more clearly what it was. It was a missile launch that spiraled out of control. The launch was early in the morning before sunrise in Norway, but the smoke and missile were high enough that the sun was hitting it and cause a strange visual effect.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[DerekLyons]

Just from looking at the picture I know that's not right.

And pray tell what exactly is your experience in analyzing these images as compared to professional and semi professional observers? (sound of crickets chirping...) I thought so.
 

Parallax on the contrail tells me the object is receding.

Nonsense. You'll the same parallax whether the object is approaching or receding. (Hint: find a straight stretch of road - define one direction as 'receding', then turn around and notice the 'approaching' segment looks exactly the same as the receding.)
 
All 'parallax' tells you is that you're looking along the object.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[repapetilto]

where are you looking?

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[Anonymous Coward]

The source of the highlighted area in the animated .gif is not even close to where the event took place.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[DrugCheese]

So this is the first jet to pass over Los Angeles at sunset? Momentous occasion!

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[khallow]

So this is the first jet to pass over Los Angeles at sunset? Momentous occasion!

And as we all know, all jets leave the exact same kind of contrail that is perfectly visible, no matter the weather and there's never clouds in the way. And they'll always be filmed by a TV crew in a helicopter, because that's what TV crews do. And it always is just before sunset.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[americanatavist]

I thought it was a missile/rocket at first too, but if you look back at the video it does seem to have standard aircraft nav lights. Check out the original video around 0:44, you can definitely see distinct green and red lights.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[lgw]

Well, the same isn't quite true if it's rocket exhaust, but then you're using the perspective to argue that it's rocket exhuast, so either way ...

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[Phroon]

Here's around the same time in IR, but for a longer duration (~900 KB gif). Quite a bit easier to see.

Source: http://goes.gsfc.nasa.gov/goeswest-lzw/california/ir5/ 1011081645G11I05.tif 08-Nov-2010 12:02 to 1011090100G11I05.tif 08-Nov-2010 20:24

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[KingAlanI]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_rocket_motor_classification
somebody fooling around with an O-grade motor or something sounds fun; a series of little A-motor powered rockets are fun enough to watch. Granted, the triple-letter attention is probably not so fun.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[Dahamma]

So, what is there about any of his points made that the video (which yes, he watched, along with many others who agree with him) so clearly disputes?

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[VShael]

Well, now we know, YOU were wrong.

You know what else? For a readership that is supposed to be somewhat intelligent, it's amazing to me how many people on slashdot
a) jumped straight into "I'm scared" mode
b) believed the mainstream news (honestly, since when are we all that gullible?)
c) disputed the few experts on slashdot who knew what they were talking about.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[shikaisi]

No, swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[blair1q]

It could be a contrail in a wind-shear. But that implies the pilot of the plane is a masochist and/or sadist, or he's found the curl on a wave just above the shear and is riding it all the way across the ocean.

Re:It's just a jet contrail

[Anonymous Coward]

the control tower claimed that there was no plane on that trajectory and neither did they catch a verticle moving object on any of they're scopes.
otherwise your explaination fits perfectly

Seems clear...

[KingAlanI]

Seems clearly likely that the US military knows exactly what it is and doesn't want to talk about it. (Maybe it's high up enough that even the local commanders don't have a full picture)
Considering how this country often goes apeshit over fake or small threats, hell hath no fury like the US facing an actual incident. :P

Re:Seems clear...

[bigredradio]

I'm more inclined to think that it was a planned launch by a local command and due to the bureaucracy and incompetence, no one else got the memo or ignored the email. Why is it that the US government is run by evil geniuses one day and incompetent government workers the next? My guess, is the later on this one.

Re:Seems clear...

[KingAlanI]

"Assume incompetence instead of malice" works too, I guess.

Re:Seems clear...

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S., for the most part, only 'goes apeshit' over hypothetical, exaggerated, or fabricated threats. A real threat that our oh-so-expensive government had completely failed to predict or prevent might cause the public to question said government, and would be covered up at all costs.

Re:Seems clear...

[Quiet_Desperation]

Seems clearly likely that the US military knows exactly what it is and doesn't want to talk about it. (Maybe it's high up enough that even the local commanders don't have a full picture)

...or it was an airplane/contrail and the military is fielding the calls about a missile launch and going "WTF are people talking about? Huh?"

Re:Seems clear...

[Teun]

Or some high-ranking Tea Party supporters wanting to warn the president he'd better be careful when travelling home.

Seriously scary.

Re:Seems clear...

[lennier]

Why is it that the US government is run by evil geniuses one day and incompetent government workers the next?

Union demarcation rules. They have a strict rotation.

Another possilibity...

[DoofusOfDeath]

The State Department getting a diplomatic communication from China or Russia that just says, "Don't fuck with us."

Re:Another possilibity...

[andyring]

Scary, but I'm with you on this one. *shudder*

Re:Another possilibity...

[vlm]

The State Department getting a diplomatic communication from China or Russia that just says, "Don't fuck with us."

More like China telling us QE2 is canceled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing#QE2

Sheep

[jimmerz28]

Two months later a small Chinese village will be found to be non-existent. But no one will put two and two together =( Poor sheep.

Re:Sheep

[Arthur Grumbine]

Two months later a small Chinese village will be found to be non-existent. But no one will put two and two together =(

Poor sheep.

I found a non-existent small Chinese village in my closet the other night, and the I found another non-existent one in my shoe this morning. Wake up, sheeple! They're everywhere!!

Bond villian? Please...

[denzacar]

Clearly this is can be work of only ONE criminal mastermind. Lex Luthor.

Skynet misfire?

[smammon]

I guess Skynet hasn't learned it's lesson about Windows Vista yet... Wrong way, Wooton er Mr. 1000...

Obama finally snapped

[tautog]

Here's yo free shit, motherfuckers!

Sounds familiar...

[ArmchairGeneral]

There was a 'mystery missile' that was launched off the coast of Newfoundland back in January. It seems our DND doesn't want to talk about that either. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/05/28/ufo-newfoundland-dnd.html

"...speculated Ellsworth."

[ciscoeng]

'"It could be a test-firing of an intercontinental ballistic missile from a submarine to demonstrate, mainly to Asia, that we can do that," speculated Ellsworth. '

What likely happened:

Obama: So, Mr. Ambassador, if you'll be so kind as to turn on CNN. Oh hey, look at that, we launched an ICBM. Rest assured, your enemies are our enemies."

That's the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny thing about intercontinental missiles is that they, well, can reach other continents. Shooting one from your home turf and having it fly overhead of the one you're trying to impress half a planet away might just be the demonstration you're after.

Re:That's the point

[jgagnon]

They need to make one that can be fired from an unmanned drone... so the drone can go someplace else and launch.

Next in the headlines, "Packistan starts WW3 after firing a nuclear missile at Iran."

Zulu time

[Slutticus]

I don't think NOTAMs are in local time

Re:Zulu time

[idontgno]

Indeed, NOTAM timestamps are in ZULU time.

At the time of this posting (18:50Z), that NOTAM isn't effective for at least one more hour.

I don't think the event and that NOTAM are directly related.

NOT the first mystery missile

[trelayne]

This isn't the first mystery missile that has been launched near a coast that has baffled military and intelligence experts. It happened 12 months ago off the coast of Canada where THREE missiles were seen. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/05/28/ufo-newfoundland-dnd.html http://youtube.com/watch?v=Jjl6k8NB7mE

Nuclear Launch Detected!

[Crasoose]

You have 10 seconds to find the little red dot.

Re:Nuclear Launch Detected!

[RCGodward]

Can't you just press space?

Re:Nuclear Launch Detected!

[Yvan256]

Finding the little red dot won't do you much good unless it allows you to find the damn ghost and kill it before those 10 seconds are over.

Pure Speculation, but:

[JRHelgeson]

I'm wondering if it was an attempted terror attack where the launch was intended to head toward the California coastline but something happened on the launch, whether by accident or intent that caused it to launch out to sea.

Re:Pure Speculation, but:

[dragonhunter21]

That'd be quite the terror attack to gain control of a nuclear submarine and launch codes.

Re:Pure Speculation, but:

[vlm]

I'm wondering if it was an attempted terror attack where the launch was intended to head toward the California coastline but something happened on the launch, whether by accident or intent that caused it to launch out to sea.

This kind of thing is usually carefully planned out in advance... if that were the case, by this time congress would magically already unanimously (Except Feingold) voted yes on a 1000 page bill with a cutesy name giving away more of our freedoms. Not seeing any congressional action, so I'm no thinking this is another false flag operation.

Re:Pure Speculation, but:

[Nethemas the Great]

'bout as easy as breaking a window and jamming a large screw driver into the ignition. Oh, wait... forget I said that.

the missile is heading north, means it's US

[alen]

the footage has the coast on the right side of the screen and the missile heading away from the camera, which if you look at a map means the missile is heading north. US missiles go over the north pole for targeting and range purposes due to the magnetic fields there. Pretty good chance this is just a test firing of a US sub launched missile

Re:the missile is heading north, means it's US

[vlm]

US missiles go over the north pole for targeting and range purposes due to the magnetic fields there.

Traditionally, we used to send our military to Russia on a semi-regular basis by going thru Poland, but in this situation the shortest great circle path to the Soviet Motherland happens to be over the north pole. Has very little to do with magnetic fields, other than ICBMs don't use compasses.

Re:the missile is heading north, means it's US

[Rich0]

US missiles go over the north pole for targeting and range purposes due to the magnetic fields there.

No, they go over the pole because the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but we don't put drill bits on missiles to tunnel through the earth, so we settle for a great circle, which is the projection of a straight line onto the surface of Earth. A great circle route from the US to Russia/China/etc goes over the pole. Magnetic fields have nothing to do with it.

Great circle is also your only option for a ballistic flight - any other path requires acceleration during the cruise phase. Unless you're firing at a position on the exact opposite side of the earth you don't get any choice at all - there is only one ballistic ground path between any two points on a globe unless they are opposite each other, or coincident. For opposite points you can fire any direction you want at the right velocity/angle and it ends up in the same place (neglecting rotation of the earth - in reality only some paths work). For the same point you can of course fire straight up, or fire any direction you want with high velocity and the round will land in the same place after one orbit (again, neglecting the rotation of the earth - in reality you probably couldn't ever hit the same point after circling the earth unless you shoot it high enough to allow a full day to pass during the orbit).

Re:the missile is heading north, means it's US

[benjamindees]

US missiles go over the north pole for targeting and range purposes due to the magnetic fields there.

What? Do you have a source for this? I always assumed it was just the most direct route over unoccupied territory we (mostly, eh) control.

Re:the missile is heading north, means it's US

[demonbug]

Geography fail. The coast of California runs roughly east-west between LA and Santa Barbara; the missile was headed more or less west, as would be expected (though I've never heard of the Navy doing test launches that close to shore).

There is a naval facility on San Nicolas Island in the Channel Islands; a quick perusal of Google Maps suggests there may be launch facilities there for ICBMs or similar. My guess would be a launch from there (though the NOTAM people have posted suggests that there was a screw-up; either the launch was early, or someone confused the dates on the NOTAM - 1700 PST on the 8th would make it 0100 GMT on the 9th, so times are right, just a day off).

Re:the missile is heading north, means it's US

[bughunter]

US missiles go over the north pole for targeting and range purposes due to the magnetic fields there.

Um. US missiles have GPS and INS navigation and can travel any damn direction the mission director wants. Generally, suborbital test flights from Vandenberg or San Nicholas go WNW to track off the North coast of Hawaii so that radars there and in Alaska can track and triangulate off of them. But not always; sometimes they place radar ships in the South Pacific. Orbital launches from Vandenberg usually track South, because Vandenberg is a great place from which to launch into sun-synchronous low earth orbit.

If you're gonna pull things outta your ass like that, have the decency to at least wipe them off before flinging them. The smell gives them away.

And you can't tell what direction it's travelling when viewing from a single position, with no fixed celestial references in view, no matter what you think your eyes are telling you.

Could that explain this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/11720891

???

Re:Could that explain this?

[Volante3192]

Cruise ship flare sizes are getting out of hand...

Re:Could that explain this?

[vlm]

Cruise ship flare sizes are getting out of hand...

I'll teach those somali pirates a lesson or two... Turn up the dial-a-yield on the next one...

Hmm...

[Haedrian]

And today COD:MW Black Ops came out. Coincidence!?

Test

[galvitron]

This is most likely a test. If it was a show of force, it would have been done close to North Korea or China to show the US's ability to project power. I don't think it's very intimidating for the US to show that they can launch a missile from their own territory.

So if it is a test, what were they testing? It would have to be something that mounts on a fairly small rocket. Submarine or ship based missiles are not huge like a delta.

Lately, the US has been testing the hypersonic craft such as the Darpa Falcon craft. They are usually air-launched on the back of a Minotaur rocket, but could probably be adapted for a naval missile. Part of these hypersonic tests is development of the prompt global strike capability, which is basically a program to create a non-ballistic hypersonic missile to hit anywhere in the world quickly (1-2 hours.)

It could also be a missile defense test. They often launch from Vandenburg AFB and use interceptors based in the Pacific (ship based midcourse defense) or Alaska (ground based midcourse defense.)

My guess: an HTV-2 or HTV-3 test.

Defense Contractor test missile

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the US Navy says it wasn't one of theirs.

That could be entirely, and technically, a true statement.

Because, if it's a defense contractor's test missile, then technically it ain't the Navy's missile yet until the Navy actually contracts to buy it.

And if it's a defense contractor's test missile, then that defense contractor is only going to say two things about it:
(1)diddly and (2)squat

Re:Defense Contractor test missile

[icebike]

Defense contractors do not test missiles without the knowledge and approval of the US Government and none of those defense contractors have subs.

Think McFly, Think!

Re:Defense Contractor test missile

[gstoddart]

Defense contractors do not test missiles without the knowledge and approval of the US Government and none of those defense contractors have subs.

In the New World Order, the US Government doesn't do missile tests without the knowledge and approval of the defense contractors.

And, yes, they do have subs. With frickin' lasers on them.

Re:Defense Contractor test missile

[Teancum]

If it was a Navy contractor doing the test instead of the Navy itself, they would still have to file paperwork with the FAA to clear the airspace around the test, file a "Notice to Mariners" that a test was being conducted in the area, and that somebody would be taking responsibility for the test in some fashion.

An excuse that it was the responsibility of a contract is a way to pour all kinds of legal pain to the contractor that having it be simply a naval exercise would help clean up most of the problems involved. If it is a defense contractor's test, that contractor had better fess up or they are going to lose their ability to get contracts in the future, and likely lose any permits they have to due future tests as well.

Could that explain this?

[rputtagunta]

Hmm.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/11720891 ???

It was told to pilots ahead of time.

[sargon666777]

It was clearly a known test. CBS didnt do their homework. This was sent to pilots: "NOTAM for LA. KZLA LOS ANGELES A2832/10 - THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS ARE REQUIRED DUE TO NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER WEAPONS DIVISION ACTIVATION OF W537. IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY, ALL NON-PARTICIPATING PILOTS ARE ADVISED TO AVOID W537. IFR TRAFFIC UNDER ATC JURISDICTION SHOULD ANTICIPATE CLEARANCE AROUND W537 AND CAE 1176. CAE 1155 WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. CAE 1316 & CAE 1318 WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. CAE 1177 WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. W537 ACTIVE, CAE 1176 CLOSED. SURFACE - FL390, 09 NOV 20:00 2010 UNTIL 10 NOV 01:00 2010. CREATED: 08 NOV 20:52 201" You don't warn pilots before launching the missile you don't know about :-)

Re:It was told to pilots ahead of time.

[canajin56]

That warning goes into effect in 1.5 hours. As opposed to last fucking night.

Re:It was told to pilots ahead of time.

[vlm]

That warning goes into effect in 1.5 hours. As opposed to last fucking night.

That's when the interceptor's target drone lands, not launches. Although I guess technically it is when the interceptor launches.

I suppose that last night is not enough time to boost around the moon and swing back for an extremely high incoming velocity target drone. Maybe a demo of targeting something deorbiting from geosync?

Re:It was told to pilots ahead of time.

[Nethemas the Great]

Obviously the Navy got their dates confused as well...

Re:It was told to pilots ahead of time.

[icebike]

You didn't do your homework.

The time is wrong, and the location is wrong.

The FAA has already denied publishing any notifications about this launch.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/11/09/exp.nr.mystery.launch.cnn?hpt=C2

PLEASE STOP POSTING THAT NOTAM. WRONG TIME. WRONG PLACE.

Re:It was told to pilots ahead of time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but what about this one?

"NOTAM for LA. KZLA LOS ANGELES A2832/10 - THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS ARE REQUIRED DUE TO NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER WEAPONS DIVISION ACTIVATION OF W537. IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY, ALL NON-PARTICIPATING PILOTS ARE ADVISED TO AVOID W537. IFR TRAFFIC UNDER ATC JURISDICTION SHOULD ANTICIPATE CLEARANCE AROUND W537 AND CAE 1176. CAE 1155 WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. CAE 1316 & CAE 1318 WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. CAE 1177 WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. W537 ACTIVE, CAE 1176 CLOSED. SURFACE - FL390, 09 NOV 20:00 2010 UNTIL 10 NOV 01:00 2010. CREATED: 08 NOV 20:52 201"

:)

Re:It was told to pilots ahead of time.

[icebike]

Wrong place and wrong time.

Read the thread before posting.

Re:It was told to pilots ahead of time.

[Anonymous Coward]

NOTAM is timestamped in zulu. It was the correct time.

Re:It was told to pilots ahead of time.

[icebike]

No it wasn't Check your facts and learn to read Zulu time.

The NOTAM refereed to the prior evening, (friday) and was for a different area further north.

Headline?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that it matters much, a missile launched at the US is bad anywhere, but the postal abbreviation for Louisiana is LA. "California" makes a better headline.

Your friendly neighborhood pedant.

sorry about your post, but...

[digitaldc]

TL; DR

DHS means nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a missile, not a flying ink cartridge. No need to panic.

One BILLION dollars

[tchdab1]

Nobody thought that it might be a demonstration to the US from an unnamed entity, trying to make the same point?
Is Dr. Evil on TV right now?

Re:One BILLION dollars

[lennier1]

Did he run out of sharks?

Re:One BILLION dollars

[n9hmg]

Did he run out of sharks?

no. lasers

Re:One BILLION dollars

[interval1066]

No, he ran out of money after laying out 1 MILLION DOLLARS for his laser shark program, which in his day was a tidy sum. He then had to be rushed to the hospital following a heart attack upon getting mortgage papers explaining he owed well over $750 Million in back mortgage payments for his island lair. His balloon payments were calculated to be only $100K/month in the 60's.

Re:One BILLION dollars

[general_ka.os]

No, but Dr. Horrible is on NetFlix

Re:One BILLION dollars

[Yvan256]

Cobra!!!

Re:One BILLION dollars

[Gulthek]

Yeah, but he's broadcasting on the old analog frequencies and no one is watching.

Re:One BILLION dollars

[gd23ka]

Yes he is in fact he invented television!

Re:Seeing as DHS Threat adviso remains at just Ora

[Darkness404]

You make the mistake of thinking that the DHS was designed to actually have anything to do with safety. The only thing it has done is allow fear to be put into people into thinking that we need to give more money + power to the government to protect us against "threats".

Obama and the China connection

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's some neocon in Washington trying to sabatage Obamas Indonesia trip .. link

Re:Obama and the China connection

[SETIGuy]

I think it's some neocon in Washington trying to sabatage Obamas Indonesia trip .. link

I doubt it. The best Cheney's men in the navy could do right now is sabotage a launch. But I will agree with you that an SLBM test launch in the Pacific while the president is Asia is an attempt to make a statement to our friends, enemies and undecideds in the region. That statement being "please remember what I can do if you make me mad" It would be nice to know the track so we could decide if it was heading to the Aleutians or to somewhere else.

That's no missile...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an ink cartridge.

Never mind...

[Slutticus]

...That starts in 1.5 hours. Looks like someone blew their load early.

hmmm my money is on jurvetson

[Anonymous Coward]

hm. my money is on jurvetson.

OMG!

[denzacar]

And you... kept it on?

You, you... PERVERT!

Re:OMG!

[martas]

I'm German, you insensitive clod! Perversion is our way of life.

Just trollin'. I'm not German, nor do I have any negative opinions about the Superior Race. Oops, Freudian slip!

Re:OMG!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops, Freudian slip!

That's Austrian, dumkopf.

urs 2 long 2

[Monkeedude1212]

DR

Not a mystery.

[SETIGuy]

I believe the term they are looking for is "secret" or "classified".

Re:Not a mystery.

[blair1q]

Probably.

I wouldn't tell anyone where my horribly beweaponed nuclear sub is before the fact, either.

Re:Not a mystery.

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the general location, I'm sure somebody at San Nicolas Island knows exactly what was going on. But why they don't say anything is the real question.

Mythbusters

[AmigaHeretic]

Guessing Adam and Jamie found something do with all that leftover Mentos, Salami, Thermite, and Coffee Creamer.

Isn't it obvious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Activision is going to great lengths to promote the release of Call of Duty: Black Ops

Death Note

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Expect people to begin dying of heart attacks soon.

Got it

[tchdab1]

It's the Mexican drug cartels asking us politely to leave them the f* alone.

Maybe

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> Fine it's a secret test, but why on Earth would you do it near the coast? Why not just do it out in the ocean where it's substantially less public? I mean, it's supposed to be secret, why do it in plain view?

(1) Maybe something about the test required it to be at that location at that time. Maybe it was intercepting something, or monitoring something, or delivering something, that needed to be at a certain position and velocity a short time later. Maybe it was even something that required having a city nearby, though I can't easily imagine what. (2) Maybe they've done this before, it's not a big deal, and usually nobody gets it on camera and reports it. Would the news have reported it if they didn't have the footage? And seriously, if you see a missile launch, does the average Joe expect it to be the navy and not bother reporting it, or does he report it to the local police, or to the news?

Re:Maybe

[Magada]

Maybe... it was a firing drill, pure and simple. If I were running a sub fleet, I'd make sure to include an element of training even into operational patrols. That element could well take the shape of impromptu drills.

I can well imagine a US boomer captain opening a sealed envelope with a "open on $date" sticker in which there are mission orders to the effect of: "within the next twenty minutes you SHALL make a practice launch towards Kwajalein, regardless of where in your assigned patrol area you happen to be and what else you happen to have going on at the time. So now you know why there isn't a nuclear warhead in tube 08 :P. Cheers."

If it were my Navy and the drill would be inadvertently filmed, I'd play dumb, because acknowledging the exact position of one of my boomers would be dumber.

Missile Defense Test? Re:FAA NOTAM

[g01d4]

The ABL was looking at something like this not too long ago. Though if they were testing something more mundane you'd think they'd pick another location.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Opening shot in the human/cetacean war

[Anonymous Coward]

In the early days of the 21st century dolphin and whale scientist launched their first test missile. Once they complete their heavy water experiments the land dwellers are toast.

Blame Mythbusters

[rweaving]

The Mythbusters are just trying to disprove the myth of the DIY ICBM.

China sub

[Anonymous Coward]

It was just a Chinese sub off the coast of LA showing they're here....

Found the contrail I think...

[Volante3192]

http://goes.gsfc.nasa.gov/goeswest-lzw/california/vis/ [nasa.gov]

Start at
1011081945G11I01.tif 08-Nov-2010 15:03 506K
and watch the contrail south across the coast through
1011082200G11I01.tif 08-Nov-2010 17:23 484K

Re:Found the contrail I think...

[Magada]

Maybe do a version with a red circle around the feature?

Re:Found the contrail I think...

[Volante3192]

Best I can do right now is this really primitive animated version

http://www.sinecreations.com/GOES.gif

Re:Found the contrail I think...

[Anonymous Coward]

hmm, all the images are blacked out for me for that time period

Re:Found the contrail I think...

[Magada]

Still not sure what I'm supposed to see, what with all the clouds and stuff.
Is it in the lower-right corner? A small white segment that elongates towards the left?

Re:Found the contrail I think...

[Volante3192]

Smack in the middle...starts out around Santa Barbara ends around catalina.

Re:Found the contrail I think...

[Magada]

Thank you.

Hmm, same day as the CoD:Black Ops launch

[jpegg]

Maybe it's just a coincidence, but Black Ops was released today. Maybe a marketing stunt?

I said LUNCH not LAUNCH!

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

:)

Re:I said LUNCH not LAUNCH!

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember that show... The skipper from Gilliagan's Island was on it, but I can't remember if Gilligan was also on it... and fired the launch button instead of the lunch button as they were restocking the space-ship canteen. I can't find any mention of this saturday morning show anywhere... q1146

2e604dd6437d477e5bdf8a8813a391c1 = salted md5sum

What was the name of that show?

Re:I said LUNCH not LAUNCH!

[Teancum]

There was a TV show that was called "Gilligan's Planet" which was an animated parody of "Gilligan's Island" set in the future where Gilligan gets rescued only to get lost again on some spacecraft. It was even more campy than original TV series, as hard as that may seem.

The TV Show that I think you are referring to is Far Out Space Nuts, starring Bob Denver (Gilligan from Gilligan's Island, but his character wasn't named that) where the lead characters were NASA employees who screwed up and accidentally launch a spacecraft while on board outfitting it for a mission. Allan Hale, Jr. (Skipper) was not a regular cast member, although he may have shown up as a guest star during the production of the series.

It certainly wasn't a fantastic show, and there were only sixteen episodes filmed in that series, which only aired on CBS on Saturday Mornings for the 1975 television season. If you remember the show, it certainly dates you as not too many people really ever saw the show.

Re:Seeing as DHS Threat adviso remains at just Ora

[Slutticus]

True. The elections are over. No need to mess with the colors right now.

now I remember

[Anonymous Coward]

I got laid that night up there.

Has anyone tried

[Normal Dan]

Going to the launch site to see what's up? I mean, there's a smoke trail to follow, plus I'm sure there were a few local who could point you in the right direction. Using some form of triangulation, it shouldn't be hard to pinpoint exactly where this was launched from. Then just travel to the site (or see who stops you from getting to the site) and you'll have your answer as to who did this. Or am I missing something?

Re:Has anyone tried

[blair1q]

Locals? 35 miles out in the ocean?

Yup. You're missing something. But I had to read TFA twice to get that particular point completely straight, too.

Re:Has anyone tried

[Normal Dan]

That actually clears some things up. Thank!

About 5 or 6 hours earlier...

[Anonymous Coward]

...a loud roar was heard rapidly heading east (inland) and seemed to rapidly climb in altitude over Calif some 200 miles north of L.A. No aircraft were seen.

Y'all are missing the obvious answer...

[Genda]

I'm thinking it's either Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina firing their campaign managers... literally!!!

Someone testing out the new KINECT hack...

[CCarrot]

"No, no, I was just trying to do 'Rocketman'!"

W. launching his book

[Anonymous Coward]

One last missile launch

I sory

[Anonymous Coward]

I accidentally a missile.

Not my fault

[tbgreve]

BHO: "It was Bush's fault the ICBM when off."

Hoax?

[Verteiron]

So far the only footage I've seen is that taken by that single CBS news chopper. Everyone has camera phones these days. How are we not seeing hundreds of videos of this event from hundreds of points of view being posted to Youtube? Can you find any? I couldn't.

Re:Hoax?

[SETIGuy]

This is Los Angeles. You're lucky if you can get video of the other side of the street, much less a rocket 35 miles away.

Re:Hoax?

[John Hasler]

None of the other videos caught the aircraft at quite the right angle to make it look like a rocket.

Re:Hoax?

[TheSync]

A friend of mine saw this (and thought it was an airplane crashing).

The more I see pictures of similar contrails, I have to say it is likely contrail with the added element of the setting sun reflecting off the plane itself so you see something that looks like "flashes of flame" below it.

Re:Hoax?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/gallery?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=7776159&photo=3

Aiming?

[keith_nt4]

I haven't seen anyone ask this: if there was any "malice" in this firing of a "missile" wouldn't be you know aimed at some place on the ground? There was no mention of anything like that one way or another. So I guess it just went up into the atmosphere and burned up on re-entry then... I think that supports the whole test fire theory, most likely by the US military.

Has anyone considered the obvious ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm... what does that button do? Oooops!

another UFO

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't everyone know Catalina island is a hot spot for UFO sightings? Probably a regular military test site. http://www.history.com/shows/ufo-hunters/videos/catalina-island#catalina-island

WTF!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is parent modded Informative?! It's a JOKE people!

Imagine if this was not a US launch...

[bill_kress]

Pretty obviously something the government knows about--otherwise with our current level of paranoia the number of bricks being shit would already be visible on google maps.

Another Failed Test

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-laser-fails-to-switch-on-105876188.html

"Last week, in the skies off Point Mugu, California, a 747 equipped with solid state lasers successfully tracked and targeted at the speed of light a short-range ballistic missile target launched from a sea-based barge; however it failed to switch on and engage its megawatt class lethal chemical laser to destroy the boosting missile."

I am guessing in a week they will let everyone know, just like last time.

What? What? How is this possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

What? What? How is this possible? How is this possible? The Department of Homeland Security strictly forbids any amateur rocket owner against having movable control surfaces on their rockets (no guidance), as that would turn them into missiles. They classify two groups of people flying missiles in the US: 1) Military, and 2) Terrorists. Certainly no one is allowed to launch anything more than an "A" motor rocket without an FAA certificate, allowing craft to enter airspace. Certain airspace (near large cities) is always restricted. Always. So what the hell happened here? Terrorists? We didn't hear any "Red Alerts" where people going to the airport are delayed for bizarre reasons once again. Unless. Unless it wasn't. Unless it ...*wasn't terrorists*. That would then make it.... make it... *military*. So. Everyone forgot that they were launching a missile today? Please, people! Check your watches! Its the 9th of November. Check the roster. Missile day... missile day. Oh yeah! Missile day!

Swamp Gas

[Baldrson]

MSNBC reports that "Pentagon says it's baffled, but scientists suggest it's just a jetliner with spectacular contrail".

Who are these so-called "scientists"?

As any reputable scientist can see it is obviously swamp gas.

Re:Swamp Gas

[BenSchuarmer]

Or the planet Venus

Strange response

[Myopic]

I discussed this with my coworkers. Normally I'm not a conspiracy minded person, but if a missile is launched off the coast of LA at rush hour I can only imagine two possibilities

1. The US military did it
2. The US military would be motherfucking scared off of its ass and scrambling like crazy

Since #2 is not happening, I am left to assume that #1 is true, despite the military's denial. The only third possibility is something which I can't actually believe could be true:

3. The US military is nonplussed that someone other than them launched a fucking missile in US territory

So if I assume the US military shot off a missile, there are lots of interesting possibilities

A. Mistake (I find this hard to believe)
B. Show of might (but wouldn't the show be better if we announced it to the world first?)
C. Routine testing or war games or something (what, off the coast of LA? at rush hour? and then deny it?)
D. Rogue launch (and then deny it?)

I don't know. This is a really really weird news story.

Re:Strange response

[miserere nobis]

3. The US Military doesn't want to look like idiots or make people panic, so they keep silent and let us assume it was theirs while they scramble like crazy internally and non-publicly.

the son of the Montauk Rainbow project, jr.

[Thud457]

Obviously they were testing some time-traveling missile, and the test failed.

wow

[unity100]

'demonstrating' ?

icbm capable submarines have been around in east and west bloc since some 30 years or more.

now shooting offcoast LA

[Anonymous Coward]

its IRON MAN - 3

I know what it is

[Combatso]

This is most definately The Pirate Bay Satelite

Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

.. in a Russian submarine, a captain is shouting: "Who the hell threw his boot on the control panel?!"

Re:Meanwhile...

[Lepitius]

Referencing an old anecdote: "A Soviet and an American nuclear submarine meet at sea. Out of the properly maintained US submarine climbs out a groomed captain, out of the Soviet rustbucket climbs out a bearded and filthy captain, yelling: "WHO THREW HIS BOOT ON THE CONTROL PANEL? WHO THE HELL THREW HIS BOOT ON THE CONTROL PANEL?" The American captain then speaks up: "You know, we in the America..". The Soviet captain interrupts: "Your beloved America doesn't exist anymore, WHO THE F%! THREW HIS BOOT ON THE CONTROL PANEL?".

Interesting low trajectory

[Thagg]

Launching missles west at dusk will give the most spectacular displays. I'm not sure if that's why they always seem to do it that way from Vandenberg!

In this case, the lighting of the contrails and the clouds is identical, saying that the missile (if that's what it is) is well within the atmosphere; and staying that way. It looks more like a rocket-powered airplane, or a missile that flies within the atmosphere (say, a Standard surface-to-air missile), than an ICBM or an anti-missile missile. Those pop out of the atmosphere pretty fast, and the contrail changes radically when that happens.

WOPR sez

[kerskine]

YOUR MOVE DR. FALKIN

Seriously - When the Pentagon won't immediately say what was launched and by whom, something is going really horribly wrong somewhere West of North America.

Nicely done Activision...

[Ogold007]

for the best PR stunt ever for a video game release: Modern Warfare 2 Black Ops!

Citation Needed...

[Ellis D. Tripp]

In the days of the Apollo program someone doing a "sneak-circuit" analysis of the Saturn V launch system found a series of ground faults that, taken together, could have resulted in a Saturn V launch from a janitor accidentally bumping the "go" button while cleaning. This would have even by-passed the launch-key protection.

(Citation Needed)

I find this one difficult to swallow. A Saturn V (or any other "real" rocket) isn't like an Estes model rocket, where all that is needed to launch is to send power to a bit of nichrome wire at the pad to light the propellant.

The Saturn V (and the Shuttle) actually launch THEMSELVES, via their onboard computers. Before the final "launch" commit point which fires the explosive bolts attaching the rocket to the pad (and lights the SRBs in the case of the shuttle), the computer checks (among hundreds of other parameters) that the liquid fuel engines are running properly, that sufficient thrust is being generated, that the guidance system is operating properly, etc., in ADDITION to having a "GO" signal from ground control.

Nobody in the firing room is tasked with "pressing the button" at T=0 to launch the rocket. At some point toward the end of the countdown, control of the launch sequence is handed over to the onboard computer, and all the ground can do is to STOP the launch sequence.

Post-mortum notam

[webdog314]

Is it possible they are restricting the airspace AFTER the fact in order to do an investigation?

Move Along... Nothing to See Here

[mpapet]

On the coast of California is a whole lotta military real estate some of it pretty secret judging by the number of ways to be discouraged from getting too close to the boundaries.

Of course the military will deny it. 50 years from now a FOIA request might be interesting, but doubtful.

A rocket launched off the California coast isn't special. Neither is something secret happening at one of the bases. Put the two together and it's a non-event.

Navy Test Site?

[BigFootApe]

I'm guessing this is the command that lit off the rocket. It seems like it's still used for a lot of weapons development testing.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/point-mugu.htm

Malfunction

[Anonymous Coward]

Might just be a malfunction and they are trying to figure out how to go to the press with that news.

Re:Malfunction

[KingAlanI]

Well that all is plausible as well.
Well, know exactly that it's at least USian

Heads should roll

[mbone]

Guys. Really now.

You've got Point Mugu Pacific Missile Range Facility just North of LA and Vandenberg AFB North of that. They both have big exclusion zones, and the authority to expand them it it's really needed. Don't go shooting stuff off outside the exclusion zones. You will get someone hurt.

If this was unauthorized, whoever did it should be court-martialed. If there wasn't an exclusion zone, at the least there should be a Court of Inquiry.

Re:Heads should roll

[geekoid]

Starting with your.

Look at the picture. It's NOT a missile launch.

I Figured It Out!!!

[LifesABeach]

I RTFA, it obvious.

On Friday night, Vandenberg Air Force Base, in California, launched a Delta II rocket, carrying an Italian satellite into orbit, but a sergeant at the base told KFMB there had been no launches since then.

It's the It-Tie-Sat, what people don't realize is that the clocks, and gyros on that particular pice of space hardware are running on Italian Time; don't worry, it'll get there soon enough.

Re:Seeing as DHS Threat adviso remains at just Ora

[Vectormatic]

i'm no expert at US military protocol, but i would assume that if this were a surprise launch by say, china, the US would keep it under wraps untill they have an apropriate public response

I Know The Real Reason

[The Wild Norseman]

It was actually a successful launch of the first intercontinental stealth missile put out by Obsidian/Bethesda. Now all they have to do is sit back and let the modding community come up with the working stealth portion of the missile. China, however, will probably wait for the Intercontinental Stealth Missile: Missile of the Year to come out first.

The Rock

[crsuperman34]

Have we shipped off Dr. Stanley Goodspeed to 'The Rock' to takeover the rogue commandos and stop them from launching that darn VX gas yet?

Who on Earth...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who might it be who might like to do something like this? Someone who sees themselves as enemies of the US maybe? Someone in a generally westerly direction? Someone who has angered others by firing rocket over their heads in the past? Someone who has been mighty angry about military activities by the US outside their coast recently? No, I'm drawing a blank here.

My Bad

[The Living Fractal]

A buddy of mine didn't believe what would happen when you mix Mentos and Diet Coke. He found out...

Noon PDT Today Till 5:00PM PDT Today

[Baldrson]

Learn to do arithmetic before you start calling other people "dumb".

Indochina vs. Indonesia

[billstewart]

I had a friend whose father was in the, ummm, Foreign Service during the 1960s, and whose brothers flew airplanes for Air America. Her father requested to be posted to Indochina, and they did in fact post him to Indonesia by mistake. (To cut them a bit of slack, there was Anti-Communist paranoia about both places, but it was basically a screwup.) It wasn't all bad for her, since she did meet her future husband there.

foreign subs free to sail near calif. coast

[SethJohnson]

A 'hostile' sub 35 miles away from US Coast wouldn't be met with a slap on the knee and a response of "you totally got us!". It would be destroyed with impunity. Subs are expensive, you don't risk losing them on a mission that amounts to showing off.

I'm not so certain that maritime law would allow the US to respond with violence for firing a missile from outside US territorial waters and the trajectory of the weapon never crosses US water or soil. According to wikipedia, foreign nuclear subs are even allowed passage within US territorial waters and are not "destroyed with impunity" on sight. In this case, however, the missile was launched from 35 nautical miles offshore, which would put it in international waters.

From Wikipedia:

The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state, although foreign ships (both military and civilian) are allowed innocent passage through it; this sovereignty also extends to the airspace over and seabed below.

I suspect this was the act of a foreign entity demonstrating a newly-developed capability to the United States. If the submarine doesn't identify its country of origin, then the US would be allowed to destroy it with impunity in international waters.

I also suspect the US knows exactly who did this and knew prior to the incident and was able to discretely provide advance warning to the other superpowers. There are probably a mixture of reasons the US is playing dumb on the identity of the launcher.

• As soon as an American official would say who it is, then the method used to secure the information will be revealed to the perpetrators and that intelligence source will be silenced.
• The US would rather the perpetrator step up and claim credit. It plays better on the world stage than unsubstantiated accusations leading to military action. Think WMD's in Iraq.
• The act was meant to intimidate. The response the US is taking is refusing to play the game.

Seth

Re:foreign subs free to sail near calif. coast

[KarrdeSW]

1) The US has not ratified UNCOLS, it does not care what is considered international waters.

2) Even if the US has ratified it, military would be allowed "innocent passage" subject to local regulations. Launching an unannounced missile is neither innocent nor regulated.

3) The Channel Islands are not international waters, they are archipelagic waters. The location of this thing was even pinpointed by a damn news station, it's right next to Santa Barabara Island. Well within US territory.

4) The trajectory of a weapon is irrelevant. Are you perfectly fine with someone sneaking up behind you and firing a gun in the opposite direction? The trajectory never crossed you, therefore a crazy man with a gun is not a threat? Bull

5) If this was an unannounced demonstration by another country, there is no international convention that would prevent the US from destroying or attempting to capture the ship.

6) If this was an announced demonstration then the ship would have been refused passage due to its non-innocent nature, meaning there is still no international convention keeping it from being destroyed.

7) The premise of this being a demonstration is that it was meant to demonstrate the ability to evade detection (we already know people can hit us with missiles, who would bother to demonstrate that?). That is antithetical to actually launching a missile, which immediately reveals your location. Also, if you REALLY wanted to demonstrate your sneakiness by launching a missile, why use a big expensive rocket? Send up something short-range, cheap, and shiny. The message is the same.

It's a US Missile (or at least US affiliated, either private or an allied country) and the agency which launched it has not been revealed yet, I don't see any other feasible option.

Re:foreign subs free to sail near calif. coast

[Cytotoxic]

NORAD says "We can confirm that there is no threat to our nation, and from all indications this was not a launch by a foreign military,"

These are the "push the button" guys. They would know if it was a foreign shot. I'd guess it was some military test or CIA spy satellite and they haven't given the press relations guys the cover story yet. But one thing's for sure, it ain't China or Russia. These countries are fully aware of where the lines are drawn, and launching an ICBM 35 miles off the coast is way, way over the line. You won't see a US sub pulling up outside Shanghai and launching a missile. It is way too dangerous to the peace. None of these countries are run by cowboys or rubes, despite the best efforts of our leaders to appear otherwise.

Re:foreign subs free to sail near calif. coast

[BobMcD]

Even if everything you said is true, there still exists the possibility of a gap in command. I think it is more likely that no one was confident enough to give the command to return fire before it was determined that the missile didn't do any harm. Imagine the impact of our sinking them and their claiming the whole thing was a malfunction. Only the President or the very, very highest levels of command would be comfortable with making that particular call.

You're analyzing the situation like you've had a few hours to think about it. The people on the ground, however, did not. And I highly, highly doubt we're sitting around at the necessary DEFCON levels to return fire on suspicion alone.

Re:foreign subs free to sail near calif. coast

[Cytotoxic]

I'm changing my baseless speculation from US launch to jet airliner optical illusion. Others have said it better, but if you look at the video with "am I looking at a highly zoomed view of a jet contrail?" in mind, you might just see a jet instead of a rocket.

Re:foreign subs free to sail near calif. coast

[Veretax]

And yet the US Constitution, cites the Law of Nations, which provides at least some basic definition of the "High Seas" for example.

Gentlemen, please! Rest your sphincters!

[snspdaarf]

It's a jet con-trail.

Maybe it's The Company

[billstewart]

If it's off Catalina Island, then obviously it's The Company. On the other hand, it could just be the usual OGA, The Company.

If the Ex-Ambassador's suggestion, that it might be a demonstration for China related to Obama's tour, were anything other than random blathering, it's a bloody stupid demonstration if there isn't a big press announcement about it from the White House, unless it's various government agencies demonstrating that Obama's not The Decider just because he's Commander in Chief.

Stupid minions

[SnarfQuest]

Note to self: Before launching ballistic missile attack on an enimies secret lair, make sure the minions in charge are not stupid enough to launch while national media cameras are active. Do the laser sharks need feeding?

Sea Launch...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/sealaunch/index.html

It wasn't ours?

[Anonymous Coward]

a Navy spokesman said it wasn't theirs.

So it must be Chinese . . .

I can just imagine his commanding officer.

[durgledoggy]

Oooops ... did you just accidentally launch a trident missile with 4 megatones worth of warheads?
You silly Billy!

Re:I can just imagine his commanding officer.

[Minwee]

"It's my first day!"

Chinese sub missile test launch

[WillAffleckUW]

They're upset over us p0wning them in the US/India/Thailand/Japan vs China trade war and they're trying to remind us they have nukes.

Which is why President Obama is coming home early, actually.

Re:Seeing as DHS Threat adviso remains at just Ora

[atrain728]

DHS != DOD

Amateurs?

[LaminatorX]

Any chance this is some kind of garage rocket? I recall seeing some several-feet-long hobby-designs as a lad. Would it be beyond belief for three or four big stages to be lugged down to the beach in the back of a pickup in the pre-dawn hours and snapped together on-site? You'd need to get it upright for launch, but your pickup could to that too with a winch and/or the right tackle. Getting large amounts of perchlorate without attracting attention is tricky, but you could crack your own (less stable) fuel from water in the garage if you were crazy enough. Could someone with basic machine tools and some off the shelf flow-control parts implement one of Goddard's kerosene-burning designs?

Am I missing something? Do those with more learned eyes see something that means this has to be some kind of military hardware?

Re:Amateurs?

[Skal Tura]

Yeah, you are missing couple things: This happened on the sea, and building that kind of a rocket would be extremely costly, especially for hobbyists and never mind that hobbyists probably know they have to get permission and inform about it ...

Ellsworth...really?

[adamofgreyskull]

When asked, however, what he thought it might be, the former ambassador said it could possibly have been a missile test timed as a demonstration of American military might as President Obama tours Asia.

Wait, what? Demonstrating American military might?...and yet the guvmint has denied its one of theirs.Surely, the whole point of demonstrating your military might is to let the world know that you're doing it. i.e. North Korea is Best Korea: launch missiles and broadcast the event on state TeeVee.

• If it's a super-secret test and, as others have suggested, CBS talked to Naval/Air Force representatives that didn't know about it , then they're demonstrating their incompetence by having launched it in plain sight.
• If they're trying to demonstrate military might, why deny it?
• If it's really not one of theirs, well then boy-howdy...whose the hell was it? And how the hell were they able to fire a missile so damn close to the American coast?

Nancy Pelosi Launched into Space

[Anonymous Coward]

In a bipartisan effort that will impress for the ages, Republicans and Democrats came together with a plan to move the country forward. Step one of implementing their new plan required the simultaneous pressing of "The Button" by both party leaders as they launched former speaker Pelosi off toward the "second star to the right and straight on till morning" on her next important mission, which was this time, safely away from her constituents.

Just THE facts! Answer me this

[Anonymous Coward]

Why all the uninformed speculation?

This community should be able to:
1. Calculate a rough trajectory from the video provided by the local CA news
2. Compare the patterns of the contrail from the video with known flying objects missiles, planes etc.
3. Calculate based on its apparent trajectory whether such a craft could be used to launch a geo satellite or any other useful satelite

After this work is done we should be able to state more likely than not it was:
A. Type of vehicle
B. Rough estimate of target destination
C. Rough estimate of launch location
D. commercial/military/UFO
E. etc

SO FAR THE facts are:
1. No notice to civilian aircraft was given before this launch occurrence(no known "NOTAMS")
2. No military has yet claimed responsibility

North Korea

[sveinb]

It seems people just don't want to contemplate the most likely sender of this packet. North Korea have launched numerous rockets in the past, some of them flying over Japan, causing a lot of anger and concern. They are predictably unpredictable and less than a month ago called a us-led naval exercise off its coast a "declaration of war". Whether this is a response or perhaps last month's harsh words were a run-up to a long planned demonstration. Either way, it's the only explanation that makes sense.

Its jet contrails

[Lawrence_Bird]

Reference please the authorities on things like this: it-aint-no-thing

Re:plane not miss

[Anonymous Coward]

it was not a missile.
http://uncinus.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/4/#more-440
it was a plane.

San Nicolas USAF launch?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many thanks to kleinbl00 of reddit, it seems that it was likely a launch from San Nicolas island which is a USAF missile launch site. Source:
http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/e3gf3/a_missile_was_launched_off_the_california_coast/c14zt3d
Enough of this nonsense about the Chinese or Russians- I highly doubt the governments of these countries would consider doing something so provocative and stupid as launching an SLBM in our backyard.

Re:Just THE facts! Answer me this

[i'malawyer]

1. Calculate a rough trajectory from the video provided by the local CA news: Origin approx. +33 37' 11.57", -118 54' 9.87" (33.619880, -118.902741) 10 mile resolution accuracy 2. Compare the patterns of the contrail from the video with known flying objects missiles, planes etc., UFO1 vs US Space Shuttle see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2qKMchcgzk vs. Aurora test flight(plane massive contrail) Aurora test flight vs. Shuttle STS-1?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUG2jbRxYoQ 3. Calculate based on its apparent trajectory whether such a craft could be used to launch a geo satellite or any other useful satelite 4. Launch time- Approximately 5 p.m. on November 8, 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_california_missile_launch After this work is done we should be able to state more likely than not it was: A. Type of vehicle B. Rough estimate of target destination C. Rough estimate of launch location D. commercial/military/UFO E. etc SO FAR THE facts are: 1. No notice to civilian aircraft was given before this launch occurrence(no known "NOTAMS") 2. No military has yet claimed responsibility

Has everyone

[geekoid]

stopped thinking?

Look at the picture, what do you notice?
You should notice that what appear to be the 'top' is not in sunlights, and what appears to be the 'bottom' is in sunlight, at dusk. And there are several airports near by.

Re:Has everyone

[Dthief]

http://uncinus.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/4/#more-4

ya, this guy seems to have other good arguments against it....most noticeably the only people reporting it were all in one specific location (where trick of the eye made it look like a vertical rise), whereas people along other parts of the coast saw a more horizontal trail

Re:Has everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Who exactly said that they saw this a more horizontal trail? I have not seen that posted anywhere on any web site on the internet. Nor have I seen any videos or pictures to back that up. Just because you say it doesn't make it fact.

You mean Chemtrail

[Anonymous Coward]

FTFY

Then there's always the fact

[sean.peters]

... that we have thousands of warheads and the Chinese have like 20. Enough to ruin America's whole day, to be sure, but we have enough to put an end to the history of China. I seriously doubt the Chinese would be crazy enough to do something quite this destabilizing. If they were capable of that kind of craziness, they would have invaded Taiwan a long time ago.

I think there's about a 99.9999 percent chance that this is a US subsurface missile launch that the Navy doesn't want to talk about, so they're issuing non-denial denials that the press isn't reporting very clearly.

I guess being an Ambassador...

[sean.peters]

... is no proof against being just plain dumb. Look, we've tested a LOT of ICBMs, SLBMs, and the like over the years. This is not some radical new technology no one realizes we have. The Chinese already KNOW we can do this, and we know that they know. So what would be the point of that kind of a demonstration? I think it's far more likely that this was a routine, but secret, test that the Navy was doing for technical reasons, and they just don't want to talk about it.

Yeah, except it's not THAT GOOD

[sean.peters]

We have a pretty good grasp on the state of acoustic silencing of all the submarine forces in the world. China has approximately 3 SSBNs: 1 Xia class that is so loud you can hear it practically all the way across the ocean, and about 2 Jin class (a third may have been launched but may not be fully operational yet), which are considerably quieter but still (relatively) easy to detect. And less anyone think that maybe they developed a totally stealthy submarine so secretly that we didn't even find out until they launched a missile off California... the only thing I can say to that is, dude, you read too many Tom Clancy novels.

Red October?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't that "fictional" sub have this kind of capability? Get close and launch w/out being detected.

Video proof its a rocket multi-stage

[i'malawyer]

At :46 you see what reasonable people could conclude is a rocket stage separation. See youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2qKMchcgzk If this were the US space shuttle at that moment it would be at an altitude of 29 miles. So we might also conclude that the actual time of the launch was 2 minutes five seconds earlier for a launch time of x. Now find x. Since we know where the heli was and likely where the UFO was, 29 miles we can figure an estimated launch location. Someone find out the precise flight path, elevation, heading and direction of camera and we will have a precise calculation. In the alternative, rule out Catlina Islands/San Nicolas Islands USAF base by running the numbers to predict if a launch from their would have that visual trajectory and approximate location. Do that and you would prove USAF spokesmen to be liars in this case. Note that the solid rocket boosters are jettisoned at two minutes and five seconds after launch at the point called "SRB Staging." At that time, the vehicle is traveling nearly 3,000 mph (4,600 km/h) at an altitude of 29 miles (47 km). sources indicate that the boosters separate at an altitude of about 150,000 ft, or 30 miles, about 2 minutes after liftoff. Their momentum carries them to a peak altitude of about 220,000 ft, or 40 miles http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0183.shtml Event Mission Elapsed Time (MET) [d/h:m:s] Relative Velocity [ft/s] Mach [-] Altitude [ft] Launch 0/00:00:00 - - - Begin Roll Maneuver 0/00:00:09 183 0.16 774 End Roll Maneuver 0/00:00:17 365 0.32 2,825 SSME Throttle Down to 65% 0/00:00:30 711 0.64 9,043 Maximum Dynamic Pressure (Max Q) 0/00:00:59 1,368 1.35 35,133 SSME Throttle Up to 104% 0/00:01:02 1,428 1.43 37,284 SRB Staging 0/00:02:05 4,212 3.93 153,405 Negative Return 0/00:03:58 6,915 7.39 319,008 Main Engine Cutoff (MECO) 0/00:08:31 24,286 22.70 362,243 1. Calculate a rough trajectory from the video provided by the local CA news: Origin approx. +33 37' 11.57", -118 54' 9.87" (33.619880, -118.902741) 10 mile resolution accuracy 2. Compare the patterns of the contrail from the video with known flying objects missiles, planes etc., UFO1 vs US Space Shuttle see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2qKMchcgzk [youtube.com] vs. Aurora test flight(plane massive contrail) Aurora test flight vs. Shuttle STS-1?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUG2jbRxYoQ [youtube.com] 3. Calculate based on its apparent trajectory whether such a craft could be used to launch a geo satellite or any other useful satelite 4. Launch time- Approximately 5 p.m. on November 8, 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_california_missile_launch [wikipedia.org] After this work is done we should be able to state more likely than not it was: A. Type of vehicle B. Rough estimate of target destination C. Rough estimate of launch location D. commercial/military/UFO E. etc SO FAR THE facts are: 1. No notice to civilian aircraft was given before this launch occurrence(no known "NOTAMS") 2. No military has yet claimed responsibility

A Russian sub, with a caterpillar drive.

[PeterChenoweth]

". . . Well, this thing could park a coupla hundred warheads off Washington and New York and no one would know anything about it till it was all over. "

We need to make sure there isn't some crazy Russian captain in a stolen Typhoon out there.

Reviewed pictures at Contrail Science

[JumpDrive]

Having reviewed the pictures over at contrailscience comparing this video to a contrail, I am now convinced that there are many more secret missile launches occurring. Why haven't they told us about these in the past?

Whole lot of sea-lawyering going on here

[sean.peters]

Former naval officer here. I think it's dubious that the water in the vicinity of the Channel Islands constitutes "archipelagic waters" for purposes of the law - I think the islands are too far apart - but you'd need a JAG to help you with that question. However, each of the Channel Islands, as part of the US, are entitled to its own 12 mile band of "territorial waters", which are also sovereign US territory, so if the launch took place within that zone, yeah, you're talking act of war there.

Also: while the US hasn't formally ratified the Law of the Sea Treaty (aka the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea - UNCLOS), it has signed it and every administration since then (including Ronald Reagan) have treated it as "customary international law" and have considered us to be bound by it. I can promise you through many years of my own at-sea experience that the USN thinks the UNCLOS is the law.

Finally: you did hit upon something important in your first paragraph. The law notwithstanding, if someone else's submarine really did do this, sure, we'd sink it. The reason is not that it's legal but that we could get away with it - when a submarine sinks, it's really hard to prove what happened, and being as how this took place right off LA we could certainly prevent China (or whoever) from investigating.

Bottom line: no way this was a foreign sub. The whole Navy would be a general quarters so fast it would make your head spin. Mullen, Roughhead, and likely a host of other admirals would be fired. Obama would have flown home from overseas. Etc, etc. This was just the Navy doing the stuff they do, and not wanting to talk about it.

Re:Whole lot of sea-lawyering going on here

[KarrdeSW]

Bottom line: no way this was a foreign sub.

This is really all I'm actually trying to get at. Admittedly, I don't think all the back and forth about international law is actually that relevant, and in hindsight it is more distracting than helpful. I find your reasoning more convincing:

The reason is not that it's legal but that we could get away with it

Which goes back to one of my original points, a foreign power would be well aware of this and therefore wouldn't send a sub on a mission like this as a demonstration. It would basically be suicide. You can't even win the PR war once you're forced to admit you actually did send a submarine to launch an unannounced missile.

Re:Whole lot of sea-lawyering going on here

[sean.peters]

Yep, totally agree with that reasoning. If you were a foreign power who wanted to demonstrate this capability, you'd just do it in your home waters. The only way sneaking this close to the US would make any sense is if you wanted to demonstrate your ability to be stealthy... and frankly, there's absolutely no way a foreign power could get all the way across the Pacific without being detected at all.

Might not be a missile

[twocows]

http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/blog/thinking-tech/the-mysterious-california-missile-launch-that-wasnt/5646/ This site is saying that it might just be a commercial airliner.

Some bones to pick

[sean.peters]

1) No the US has not ratified UNCLOS, but we consider it "customary international law" and consider ourselves bound by it. I spent 20 years in the US Navy and I guarantee the USN thinks UCLOS is the law.

3) People are jumping to all sorts of conclusions about whether these are "international" or "archipelagic" waters with no more basis than "it was about 35 miles out to sea, west of LA and north of Catalina Island". This may or may not have been in international waters. Without getting an exact position and plotting it on a chart, you don't know.

But yeah, I agree with your conclusion anyway - no way this was a foreign missile. UNCLOS or no UNCLOS, we'd have sunk that bad boy.

Re:Some bones to pick

[Thing 1]

What happened to "2)"? And the "N" in your second reference to UNCLOS? And the reference to Office Space in your "third" point's third through eighth words? And my sobriety?

Dude, your grasp of these issues is incomplete

[sean.peters]

First of all, the article doesn't give you a lat and long where this took place, and until you plot the launch position on a nautical chart, you just don't know whether or not it was in international waters. "35 miles out to sea, west of LA and north of Catalina" doesn't tell you anything.

Second of all, you need to read up on UNCLOS before you start talking about this stuff. There are many, many more zones than territorial waters and and EEZs. And although we haven't ratified UNCLOS, every administration since it was signed has treated it as customary international law.

Re:Dude, your grasp of these issues is incomplete

[Teancum]

There is a splat on a map by the news agency who broke this story that suggests at least a location for where the launch likely happened at (presuming it was even a rocket launch).

Without going into the gritty details, when you are talking about the actions between nations you can sometimes invoke lawyers and courts, but typically those things mean pretty much whatever the leaders of those countries involved think they mean. As a practical matter, the U.S. Navy isn't about to sink a ship belonging to another country unless that country appears to be a threat. The suggestion here is that the ship would be sunk simply because it happens to be close to the coast of America. That simply is not how things work in this world.

Clearly, if this was a sub-based missile launch approximately 35 miles from the U.S. coast and performed by somebody who doesn't have approval from the U.S. government in some fashion, it would be perceived as a major threat to American sovereignty and would be dealt with, regardless of it it happened to be within or just outside of any sort of claimed territorial waters.

The response is a political question, as nobody was harmed, no city was nuked, and in fact there was nothing remotely threatening from the direction and path of this contrail at all. The only threat is if you can determine that somebody potentially dangerous to America was responsible for creating this device, whatever it was that made the cloud.

Re:plane not miss

[uberdilligaff]

I agree. When you view the video, you see that there is no characteristic rocket exhaust plume, which would be extremely bright. There appears to be sunlight reflecting directly from the underside of the object, but not the extended roman candle effect you see from rocket motors. Nor is it accelerating rapidly as it would if it were a solid fueled missile -- the velocity is pretty slow and constant. Just because the helicopter reporter called it a missile doesn't make it one.

I continue to be amazed

[sean.peters]

at the extent to which people will spout off about topics they don't understand (I know, must be new here). For starters:

In this case, however, the missile was launched from 35 nautical miles offshore, which would put it in international waters.

That ain't necessarily so. 35 miles offshore, depending on the bearing, could very well put it within 12 miles of Catalina or one of the other channel islands... which would be US territorial waters. Unless you have the actual lat & long of the launch and have plotted it on a chart, you're talking out your ass here.

I suspect this was the act of a foreign entity demonstrating a newly-developed capability to the United States. If the submarine doesn't identify its country of origin, then the US would be allowed to destroy it with impunity in international waters.

Dude, now you're just making stuff up. You think it was the act of a foreign entity... based on what, exactly? Which is more likely - 1) there's a huge Tom Clancy novel playing out off the coast of Socal? or 2) the USN is doing a routine missile shot and doesn't want to talk about it? I know which one I'm voting for. Also, you get to destroy submarines that don't identify themselves? I wish I had known that when I was in the Navy, because we would have destroyed several! Unfortunately, most of them would have turned out to be our own. Submarines don't go around identifying themselves, and even if they don't, it doesn't mean you can shoot them. Seriously.

Sure, it's fun to come up with wild theories of international intrigue, but: Occam's Razor: it applies to everything.

Re:I continue to be amazed

[SethJohnson]

That ain't necessarily so. 35 miles offshore, depending on the bearing, could very well put it within 12 miles of Catalina or one of the other channel islands... which would be US territorial waters. Unless you have the actual lat & long of the launch and have plotted it on a chart, you're talking out your ass here.

I only have the information provided by the linked article which describes the launch zone as 35 miles 'out to sea'. I did not look at the graphic in the article that clearly shows Catalina and other islands in close proximity to the launch. It is very plausible that the launch occurred from within US Territorial Waters.

Also, you get to destroy submarines that don't identify themselves? I wish I had known that when I was in the Navy, because we would have destroyed several! Unfortunately, most of them would have turned out to be our own. Submarines don't go around identifying themselves, and even if they don't, it doesn't mean you can shoot them. Seriously.

I was really just referring to the protection afforded by the 'Law of Nations'...

The Law of Nations does not include any rules regarding the claim of vessels to sail under certain maritime flag, but imposes the duty upon every State having a maritime flag to stipulate by its own Municipal Laws the conditions to be fulfilled by those vessels which wish to sail under its flag. In the interest of order on the open sea, a vessel not sailing under the maritime flag of a State enjoys no protection whatever, for the freedom of navigation on the open sea is freedom for such vessels only as sail under the flag of a State. But a State is absolutely independent in framing the rules concerning the claim of vessels to its flag. It can in particular authorise such vessels to sail under its flag as are the property of foreign subjects; but such foreign vessels sailing under its flag fall thereby under its jurisdiction.

Just because you didn't fire on unknown watercraft while you were in the NAVY doesn't mean that it was illegal to do so. I hate that our country has decided that if a person is captured without a formal uniform of a recognized state, that person can be tortured and held indefinitely as an 'Enemy Combatant.' The same interpretation would apply to any unmarked watercraft in international waters.

Maybe your mates didn't sink unmarked subs, but that was probably because you really had a good idea that they belonged to one of several entities (including the US) that we don't want to start a fight with. Now we've got a situation where an unknown submarine has done something uncharacteristic of subs belonging to every single aforementioned entity. It's a bit of a different playing field to be sure.

Seth

Re:I continue to be amazed

[sean.peters]

Just because you didn't fire on unknown watercraft while you were in the NAVY doesn't mean that it was illegal to do so.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that we wouldn't, in fact, have sunk such a submarine - I think we almost certainly would do so. You could probably even build a legal case around the fact that a missile launch represented a "hostile act". But your legal theory is simply wrong - you do not get to shoot other military units simply because they don't identify themselves. I spent many, many years in the Navy, and none of our ships and none of anyone else's ships goes around announcing their identity. If the other guys can figure out who you are, great. But if they don't tell you, it's not open season to shoot them.

So tell me...

[sean.peters]

1. How do you know this was an SLBM? Or even a sub launched missile of any kind (ballistic or otherwise)? The only thing you really know is that from LA they saw a missile launch out to sea. Could very well have been surface launched.
2. How do you know this was a "demonstration" as opposed to a USN operational test (which, as I know from my own Navy experience go on absolutely all the time)?
3. How does it make any sense to show off that we're "within range" by launching right off our coast, when they could announce a test off their own coast and let us track it, without the danger of touching off nuclear Armageddon? This might make sense as a demonstration of how stealthy their subs are, but not as a demo of their missile technology. And I guarantee that neither the Chinese nor the Russians have developed subs so stealthy they can get all the way to LA without being detected.

I guarantee this is nothing more than a Navy test that they don't want to talk about, so they're denying.

Re:So tell me...

[MarcQuadra]

"How does it make any sense to show off that we're "within range" by launching right off our coast, when they could announce a test off their own coast and let us track it, without the danger of touching off nuclear Armageddon?"

I agree that this is most likely one of our own, but the logic of sneaking in close and launching in the opposite direction is a pretty safe thing to do. The first telemetry data will show that the missile isn't a threat (since it's headed in the other direction). A launch 'from home' towards us would be much more likely to inspire immediate retaliation. Plus, it wouldn't show that you can sneak up close and have your 1500-mile range missiles cover our whole territory.

On the contrary

[sean.peters]

If that was the case, expect a cover-up on this because those kind of secrets never get released to the public.

Actually, those kind of secrets are the hardest to keep secret, because sailors (being human) can't keep their mouths shut about that kind of thing. If we had accidentally launched an SLBM I can pretty much guarantee it would be all over the news.

Not the only way

[sean.peters]

We still have large and impressive operational SOSUS arrays all over the Pacific, and I guarantee you that the Chinese SSBNs are loud enough to be tracked with them. No way they snuck all the way across the Pacific undetected.

Re:Not the only way

[Wonko the Sane]

I guarantee you that the Chinese SSBNs are loud enough to be tracked with them

All the ones that we know about are too loud.

How many container ships leave China for the port of LA every week? Is SOSUS sensitive enough to distinguish the noise of an SSBN that is following one closely enough?

Re:Not the only way

[sean.peters]

Re: the ones we know about - dude, they have, count 'em, 3 SSBNs. We know a lot about all their acoustic signatures (my bet would be that our STs can identify them by name just from their signatures). It is quite simply not credible to assert that they've developed, built, and launched an entirely new class of SSBNs, much stealthier than the ones we know about, without us getting wind of it. And re: hiding under a container ship - it's relatively easy to tell when an SSBN has left port, as you can see it on a satellite pass.

The whole "the Chinese did it" theory is just way too Tom Clancy to be real.

Re:Not the only way

[Wonko the Sane]

my bet would be that our STs can identify them by name just from their signatures

It was my experience that the level of proficiency you are describing was extremely rare.

The whole "the Chinese did it" theory is just way too Tom Clancy to be real.

It's far more likely that if anything was launched and it wasn't just a rare type of airplane contrail it was a US launch instead of any other country's. You shouldn't discount the possibility that someone couldn't sneak up on the US coast and launch a missile, however.

Dude...

[sean.peters]

1) We don't even know if this was a sub launched missile. The surface fleet launches missiles all the freaking time, and you couldn't tell the difference from LA.

2) There are test ranges for all sorts of stuff off the coast of SoCal. Recall that the Navy owns several islands out there that they use for target practice.

I guarantee that this is a perfectly ordinary test shot that the Navy doesn't want to talk about.

More than kinda

[sean.peters]

This is military jargon thing. ICBMs, no matter what the acronym stands for, are considered to be land-based missiles. SLBMs are the same thing only launched from submarines (although many early US and current rest-of-world SLBMs have considerably shorter ranges). MRBMs are land based and have ranges about to about 3000km. SRBMs are also land based and have ranges up to about 1000 km.

maybe they where shooting at a alien Spaceship!

[Joe The Dragon]

maybe they where shooting at a alien Spaceship!

Test Launch of the "Coyote" ?

[mbradmoody]

Test launch of the "Coyote" anti-missile missile? Rail launched RAM jet with some kind of booster to help get it up to ramjet speeds. From San Nicolas Island. All seems to fit though you would expect the military to announce the test in advance so that planes stay out of the way Link is to an environmental permit application for launches from San Nicolas Island. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/permits/sni_str_application.pdf

It's an Airplane Contrail

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a goddamned missile.

Related to Carnival Cruise ship?

[billkershner]

So, does the thought go through anyone's mind that -- if the thing really was a missle of some sort -- that it could in some strange way be related to the Carnival cruise ship that had the engine fire in and around the same timeframe. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/world/americas/10briefs-Mexico.html. Some military ships were indeed reportedly pulled AWAY from training exercises to go help respond to the stranded passengers and deliver food and supplies to them. Maybe it was a distress flare from the upset strandees?

Today, the music died.

[lawpoop]

Folks, today is the day that reddit out-interneted slashdot:

I'm focusing on the Atlas 5 because it's the launch vehicle for the X-37, most definitely the most spooky-secret thing the US has (publicly) in the sky. The last time they launched it the world flipped out and lost track of it for a while, but those pesky fuckers at SEESAT-L found it anyway.

Read the rest of the comment for a more detailed analysis.

Slashdot, I am dissapoint :(

Umm...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way that you stop an SSBN is to maintain a large fast attack fleet and track each and every one of them as they leave port and follow them until the return.

And that's what the Americans did to all the Russian missile subs and vice versa during the cold war... so what's your point?

Re:Umm...

[Wonko the Sane]

so what's your point?

The point is that happened decades ago and the US Navy no longer does it, nor have the crews trained how to do it.

The institutional knowledge would need to be rebuilt almost from scratch.

I'm not talking about the skills of operating the sonar equipment to track a contact but the day-to-day skills of how to operate the boat without making any accidental noises that would give your position away for days or weeks at a time plus the motivation that it takes to make the crew care enough to make sure they don't make any mistakes. That culture is long gone.

Conspiracy theory fest in comments of 2nd link.

[PaganRitual]

That second link, while not only being a useful explanation, is full of deliciously insane conspiracy theories in the comments section. For those that find entertainment in the insanity of others, be sure to check it out.

Finally, someone that is sceptical

[dbIII]

See the post a long way above about jet contrails. It's a UFO, but this time people are attempting to identify it as a missile instead of little green men.

Easy answer

[dbIII]

It's a missile from New Zealand - it's already the 10th there :)
With enough brown paper and string I'm sure they could put a missile together.

helicopter @ 10 seconds in?

[Anonymous Coward]

anyone notice what looks to be a twin rotor helicopter @ 10 seconds in in that video?

Re:helicopter @ 10 seconds in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. It is.

What reality are you in?

[MasaMuneCyrus]

Taiwan is far gone from China's grasp. China can threaten it, President Ma can snuggle with the PRC, and the entire world can turn its back, but the fact is that the vast majority of Taiwanese now consider themselves Taiwanese (i.e., not Chinese), and virtually no one seeks reunification. Any real move towards unification would result in civil unrest the likes of which modern highly developed nations have never experienced.

As of now, the only real chance of unification is
A.) All-out total war by the PLA (which would be a catastrophe for the entire region, if not the planet on every front -- humanitarian, technological, economical, peaceful, etc...)
B.) China would have to do an about-face immediately on their aggressive behavior, become a better, nicer country to be in than any industrialized democratic nation, and keep up that image for enough generations that newly-born Taiwanese would like China and the older Taiwanese would die off.

Don't need to demonstrate..

[MasaMuneCyrus]

China has one of the largest espionage networks in the world. It encompasses all manner of relations, whether it be military, business, hackers, diplomats, or even foreign exchange students.

I doubt that China would need a demonstration of the US military's capabilities to understand a fact that most of the world already knows -- the US has the capability to launch ICBMs from basically whatever platform it wants.

this is what you get if you outsource the military

[vaporland]

A XeWater LLC subcontractor was giving a after-closing tour of the secret underwater missile base to his new girlfriend, when he pressed the wrong button and ... oops - that volcano in Indonesia just erupted again!

Batman!

[Anonymous Coward]

It was the Goddamn Batman, people!

Uh... guys?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh... guys?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/09/national/main7037857.shtml?tag=channelMore;pop

Headline: 'Pentagon Can't Explain "Missile" off California' ...
Yeah.

It's not that simplistic

[dbIII]

China would have to do an about-face immediately on their aggressive behavior

They started doing that in about 1990. They are pushing for Taiwan to eventually and voluntarily become an "autonomous zone" like Hong Kong, Macua and the Korean region in the north of China bordering Russia and North Korea (ie local governments get to do stuff but can be overruled at any time). There seems to be a lot of overt and most likely covert support of pro-Chinese groups in Taiwan as well as the obvious military stick which is all many can see. There's also games with UN votes and a lot of small countries that trade with China, so not many places actually "recognise" Taiwan and when China wants the numbers on a vote they get it.
You'll never see China pull a Panama style invasion to install a puppet government. There are plenty of loonies in uniform that have never been near a military conflict and see the cold war as the "good old days" and are just itching for an excuse to start a new one with China, plus Japan would not stand for it either.
Hopefully you are mature enough to understand that the above comments only say what they say and not that I approve of China's actions or want to live in the place. I think the people of Taiwan are a lot better off under their own rule than if China took over even if it was relatively peacefully.

"Natural" explainations...

[Anonymous Coward]

A CNG powered vechicle going ballistic?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOf69xHnyrk

A 6 year old launching a water rocket filled with tap water after their drinking water was contaminated by hydraulic fracturing?

Re:plane not miss

[dch24]

Can you respond to this comment on the linked site?

Your explanation is very thorough and appreciated.

If it’s a plane — any chance you could comment on the air traffic notification:

KZLA LOS ANGELES A2832/10 – THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS ARE REQUIRED DUE TO NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER WEAPONS DIVISION ACTIVATION OF W537. IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY, ALL NON-PARTICIPATING PILOTS ARE ADVISED TO AVOID W537. IFR TRAFFIC UNDER ATC JURISDICTION SHOULD ANTICIPATE CLEARANCE AROUND W537 AND CAE 1176. CAE 1155 WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. CAE 1316 & CAE 1318 WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. CAE 1177 WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. W537 ACTIVE, CAE 1176 CLOSED. SURFACE – FL390, 09 NOV 20:00 2010 UNTIL 10 NOV 01:00 2010. CREATED: 08 NOV 20:52 2010

Gunboat diplomacy?

[GiMP]

If we didn't launch, then perhaps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_diplomacy ?

Re:plane not miss

[dch24]

Sorry to reply to my own post, but further down:

Chewing, chewing, chewing

W537 is way north and west of Catalina island. W537 extends west southwest of Santa Barbara, so it’s not really in this area anyway.

Check out http://www.skyvector.com, search for KLAX, and look for “Warning W537 in blue text out over the ocean on the left side of the chart.

W537 wouldn’t have affected the flight in the video or US Airways 808. Both were south of W537.

–NoJoe

Ok, W537 is the next Warning north of the Catalinas. But CAE 1316 and CAE 1318 are definitely right in the area of the event.

And, I hadn't looked at skyvector before. Awesome.

Evil military contractor creates scare...

[LostMyBeaver]

I was leaning towards an evil military contractor launching a missile near the U.S. to scare the shit out of Californian's so they pressure the U.S. government to purchase more advanced missile detection and destruction systems.

It's a counter-EMP test.

[ormondotvos]

It's been widely bruited about that a tramp freighter could fire an EMP-modified 15 kiloton nuke up to the 25 mile height needed to blow out the entire state electrically. This was just a test to see whether they could blow up, or even detect such a missile.

That's the thing

[sean.peters]

People have jumped to the conclusion that this was an SLBM launch, when there is absolutely no evidence that this is the case. This could have very easily been a test launch from a US Navy surface ship.

The most reasonable explanation...

[sean.peters]

... is that this was a perfectly ordinary test launch that the Navy, for all the usual reasons, doesn't want to talk about. And why does everyone (not necessarily including you) assume this was an SLBM launch? It's just as likely that it was a surface launched missile.

Re:The most reasonable explanation...

[LWATCDR]

Actually it was a contrail that just looked strange.
But to answer your questions.
Why an SLBM?
A Tomahawk wouldn't make that type of a contrail. The boost phase is short.
An SM2 or SM3 would have flown a lot faster than shown in the video.
So it would have had to be a large rocket. The only large rocket the Navy has that would have looked like that is an SLBM.
The Navy doesn't have any surface ships that can launch and SLBM so it would be sub launched.
Also any ordinary test would have taken place on a closed range.

What is scary here is that it took so long to get the answer and I am not sure we have an answer yet as much as a most likely answer.

One would think that the Military and the FAA could have just told us that it was FLT xxx from y flying to x and was at FLxx.

Does the US have any air defense at all?

Seriously, it's obvious.

[cycleflight]

Anyone can see it's jet entrails. We don't need to be looking for a defense response, we need a mechanic response.

And you know it's an SLBM... how?

[sean.peters]

Dude, the only evidence we have is a launch trail. This missile could very easily be a surface launched missile, or as someone pointed out, even an airplane. There is precisely zero evidence that this is an SLBM. And the only thing the Navy has REALLY done is issued a non-denial denial that they did it. I think the chance that some foreign power is launching SLBMs off our coast is approximately zero.

It was the government

[thetoadwarrior]

The government says it's not threat while claiming not to know anything about it. Who in the hell do they think they're fooling? If there is no worry about it then they know exactly what it was.

At war? Might you be paranoid?

[jonaskoelker]

China is already at war with us, but it is an economic war.

Now, I may be hopelessly naive and/or grossly underinformed, but here goes:

How do you know they're not just trying to achieve economic growth for the benefit of the selectorate*?

* The selectorate is the group of people who selects the leaders and give them their power. Hey look, that sentence works without the s as well (electorate [...] elects [...]), and the electorate _is_ the selectorate in a democracy. In a military dictatorship, the selectorate is a small cabinate of generals.

Re:At war? Might you be paranoid?

[Pharmboy]

That is pretty naive. That is like saying that when Mark David Chapman shot John Lennon, he wasn't trying to murder him, but instead wanted to give him lead poisoning.

Privitization

[pseudorand]

So let me get this straight. The U.S. Military has now privatized missile launches and US Airways was the lowest bidder?!? I know the republicans worked quickly, but that's some damn fine big-gov't cuttin', especially considering they only have one house of congress.

What was that?

[Max_W]

It is not an aircraft. It is too fast for an aircraft and too slow for a regular missile.

Re:plane not miss

[Anonymous Coward]

hell no; it wasn't, you brainwashed tard.

Just another Top Gear episode

[xsuchy]

Probably another episode of Top Gear. Previous attempt was not fully successful:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/show/episodes/series9episode4.shtml