Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mystery Missile Launched Near LA

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the he-did-it dept.

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.

32 of 858 comments (clear)

  1. Hmmm .... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Hmmm .... by The+Pirou · · Score: 4, Interesting

      '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.

    2. Re:Hmmm .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Hmmm .... by icebike · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:Hmmm .... by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:Hmmm .... by NatasRevol · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I want to know one thing.

      Where did it land?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    6. Re:Hmmm .... by Rich0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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).

    7. Re:Hmmm .... by AhabTheArab · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    8. Re:Hmmm .... by icebike · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    9. Re:Hmmm .... by jackbird · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?

    10. Re:Hmmm .... by Teancum · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    11. Re:Hmmm .... by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    12. Re:Hmmm .... by NatasRevol · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    13. Re:Hmmm .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Indonesia, China. Same thing.

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

    14. Re:Hmmm .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

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

  2. It's just a jet contrail by Muad'Dave · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    1. Re:It's just a jet contrail by DrugCheese · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Brian is wrong. Maybe he didn't view the video but it's very clear cut that it is NOT an airliner.

      --
      *DrugCheese rants*
    2. Re:It's just a jet contrail by blair1q · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:It's just a jet contrail by Volante3192 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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

    4. Re:It's just a jet contrail by Volante3192 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I made a really primitive animated gif out of those shots:

      http://www.sinecreations.com/GOES.gif

  3. Re:Solid fuel, for sure... by mujadaddy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

    --
    Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
    "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
  4. Another possilibity... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The State Department getting a diplomatic communication from China or Russia that just says, "Don't fuck with us."

  5. NOT the first mystery missile by trelayne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  6. Re:Solid fuel, for sure... by jd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  7. Maybe by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > 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?

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  8. Re:Obvious Explanation by iluvcapra · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's no moon...

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  9. Indochina vs. Indonesia by billstewart · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  10. Re:Obvious Explanation by KDR_11k · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  11. Its jet contrails by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Reference please the authorities on things like this: it-aint-no-thing

  12. Re:Has everyone by Dthief · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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

    --
    www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
  13. Re:Not the only way by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

  14. Re:plane not miss by dch24 · · Score: 1, Interesting
    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