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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
~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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
That doesn't seem to apply to the patriots of the American Revolutionary War, as clearly there were groups that did deprive "fellow countrymen" of life, liberty, and property with essentially mob rule. Buildings were ransacked, people were tarred and feathered, and in some cases simply lynched or shot simply because they continued to support King George III of England during the era. Fields were salted, crops burned, and all other sorts of mayhem that did not take place on a formal battlefield.
Yes, Washington was engaged in formal military engagements, but that was hardly the only action happening and if the war being won depended only on the actions of Washington, it would have never succeeded.
Nathaniel Greene in particular was noted for using "unconventional warfare" in the southern colonies (now states) including many acts that would today be a violation of the Geneva Convention or even considered flagrantly acts of terrorism. It happened.
The founders of the American Republic weren't as pure and clean in terms of ethics as you are trying to portray here.
The problem with the term terrorism is that it implies the idiot causing chaos is merely a loose cannon acting on their own and that it needs to be a law enforcement problem. While there may be a few cases where that is true, such as perhaps Timothy McVeigh, it is missing the point that in most cases "terrorism" really is an act of rebellion often financed and supported by a nation-state (usually not the one where the acts are being committed).
In other words, "terrorism" is really nothing more than an act of war under the guise that it it just "innocent" civilians who are being mislead, usually when those doing the actions aren't really all that innocent.
I should also point out that the Sons of Liberty were indeed engaged in many acts that would today be classified as terrorism, including kidnapping of British Government officials, planting bombs, destroying communications lines, and all manner of civil disobedience including flagrant armed rebellion and theft of arms from the government warehouses. I'm not talking a few bullets, but stealing artillery pieces.
I'd suggest that you look at this picture in Wikipedia and tell me how these guys were being noble and decent to this poor tax official who was just following orders.
It was also not without controversy with some of these actions even in America when that happened, and there certainly were considerable numbers of people who throughout the Revolutionary War supported England and wanted the British to win. In fact, even well after the Declaration of Independence the mood in America was still split mostly 50/50 as to which "side" most Americans wanted to see win.
Yes, I might have even backed the Sons of Liberty and other subversive groups working in America in the 1770's in terms of supporting their aims and goals (my ancestors certainly did when the time came to put their lives on the line), but the actions of the Boston Tea Party was clearly a terrorist action, even if that became the "winning side" in the end.
I'm not using this to justify the actions of Osama bin Laden but I am pointing out that the founders of the American Republic were traitors, rebels, and if they did many of those acts today in America would be found guilty of terrorism according to current federal law. It is an uncomfortable truth, but it is true.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That doesn't seem to apply to the patriots of the American Revolutionary War, as clearly there were groups that did deprive "fellow countrymen" of life, liberty, and property with essentially mob rule. Buildings were ransacked, people were tarred and feathered, and in some cases simply lynched or shot simply because they continued to support King George III of England during the era. Fields were salted, crops burned, and all other sorts of mayhem that did not take place on a formal battlefield.
Yes, Washington was engaged in formal military engagements, but that was hardly the only action happening and if the war being won depended only on the actions of Washington, it would have never succeeded.
Nathaniel Greene in particular was noted for using "unconventional warfare" in the southern colonies (now states) including many acts that would today be a violation of the Geneva Convention or even considered flagrantly acts of terrorism. It happened.
The founders of the American Republic weren't as pure and clean in terms of ethics as you are trying to portray here.
The problem with the term terrorism is that it implies the idiot causing chaos is merely a loose cannon acting on their own and that it needs to be a law enforcement problem. While there may be a few cases where that is true, such as perhaps Timothy McVeigh, it is missing the point that in most cases "terrorism" really is an act of rebellion often financed and supported by a nation-state (usually not the one where the acts are being committed).
In other words, "terrorism" is really nothing more than an act of war under the guise that it it just "innocent" civilians who are being mislead, usually when those doing the actions aren't really all that innocent.
I should also point out that the Sons of Liberty were indeed engaged in many acts that would today be classified as terrorism, including kidnapping of British Government officials, planting bombs, destroying communications lines, and all manner of civil disobedience including flagrant armed rebellion and theft of arms from the government warehouses. I'm not talking a few bullets, but stealing artillery pieces.
I'd suggest that you look at this picture in Wikipedia and tell me how these guys were being noble and decent to this poor tax official who was just following orders.
It was also not without controversy with some of these actions even in America when that happened, and there certainly were considerable numbers of people who throughout the Revolutionary War supported England and wanted the British to win. In fact, even well after the Declaration of Independence the mood in America was still split mostly 50/50 as to which "side" most Americans wanted to see win.
Yes, I might have even backed the Sons of Liberty and other subversive groups working in America in the 1770's in terms of supporting their aims and goals (my ancestors certainly did when the time came to put their lives on the line), but the actions of the Boston Tea Party was clearly a terrorist action, even if that became the "winning side" in the end.
I'm not using this to justify the actions of Osama bin Laden but I am pointing out that the founders of the American Republic were traitors, rebels, and if they did many of those acts today in America would be found guilty of terrorism according to current federal law. It is an uncomfortable truth, but it is true.