Slashdot Mirror
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.
A Google van was dispatched to get street view data of the Moon.
... but it's still in Beta.
*ominous voice* Phase II has started ahead of schedule
My work here is dung.
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.
Living With a Nerd
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.
No one wants to take credit for it? Okay.
I'll take credit for it. If found please return it. Thanks.
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.
Qxe4
If it was Mythbusters, it was not a rocket, but another water heater.
--
BMO
An expert named Brian on the seesat-l list says:
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
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.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
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.
it was not a missile.
http://uncinus.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/4/#more-440
it was a plane.
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.