Los Angeles Evacuation Alert

More thoughts on the apparent missile firing off Los Angeles: I an way out of my depth when it comes to modern weaponry, but I thought to check online regarding the known capabilities of the North Korean Navy. (The celebrated Wolfram Alpha, by the way, turns out to be worthless, here. It admits of only one possible meaning for the word “submarine”: it comes with cold cuts). DPRK do have an established submarine fleet, and submarine manufacturing facilities as well. The submarines they have are supposed to be diesel-electric, not nuclear, limiting their range—but the listed range is still 9,000 miles. The actual distance from Pyongyang to Los Angeles is 5,946 miles. That makes it possible, with a little tinkering or extra fuel storage, to make the trip and get home, even without refuelling at sea, and even if North Korea has not significantly improved the submarine models they inherited from China and Russia, using their own research capabilities.

They are also not supposed to be equipped to launch missiles; that would be the crucial innovation.

It is interesting to note, in this regard, that the DPRK's latest and most up-to-date missile facility is actually build on the seacoast.

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw080915_2_n.shtml

This seems a bit odd, since the US is a sea power, and this makes it rather more exposed than otherwise to spying and possible destruction. It makes more sense, though, if part of the research program is the fitting of missile launchers to submarines.

The point of the exercise, from North Korea's view, would not be just to warn off the US; North Korea's regime lives largely on weapons sales. The point is to advertise to anyone else who might want a first-strike capability against the US that the store is open...

Iran, of course, is not only on the potential buyers' list; they've been co-developing weapons with North Korea for years.

The expert from Jane's, the ruling authority on such matters, has been prepared to go on record saying it was a missile, not a jet contrail:

“Doug Richardson, the editor of Jane’s Missiles and Rockets, examined the video for the Times of London and said he was left with little doubt. 

"It’s a solid propellant missile," he told the Times. "You can tell from the efflux [smoke]." 

Richardson said it could have been a ballistic missile launched from a submarine or an interceptor, the defensive anti-missile weapon used by Navy surface ships. 

Some are suggesting it is incredible that anyone could fire a missile so near to one of the US's coasts without being detected or identified. But that would be the entire point of the exercise, wouldn't it—to do something shocking? History is jam-full of examples of official bureaucracies caught with their trousers about their ankles in such a wise. Two words: Pearl Harbor.

But then again, even if they saw the sub coming in and knew what was going to happen, what were they going to do? Depth-charge it? That's an act of war. Tell everyone what was happening? Panic in the streets of LA would not be pretty.

Bombs Away

On the off-chance you missed it, something mighty peculiar just happened off the coast of California. About 35 miles out from Los Angeles, someone launched a large missile, nicely visible from the city. US Armed Forces claim to know nothing about it.

A test-firing of something secret? No; obviously, if this were so, they would not fire it right off LA, and right at rush hour, 5 pm. Not just the worst thing possible for secrecy: there is an intrinsic danger here to the civilian population. Missiles can misfire. Especially experimental ones.

A private launch? But that was a very big missile, and fired at sea. A bit much for a hobbyist. And why do it? For publicity? Then we should expect someone to have come forward by now to take responsibility.

It seems obvious that somebody was trying to send somebody a message.

If the US Armed Forces were trying to put on a display, though, would there really be any need to stay quiet and play dumb about it? And if the point were to make an impression to a foreign power, why off LA? Why not off the coast of some other relevant power, even if not a hostile one, just to demonstrate reach—since the US probably has the muscle to do it? For example, if the point was to unnerve North Korea, why not fire the missile, if not off Pyongyang, off Tokyo, or Manila? If the point was to unnerve Iran, why not fire it off Dubai, or Mumbai? Indeed, since everyone already assumes the US can launch missiles from sea wherever and whenever they wish, why bother with such a demonstration in the first place?

Which opens the possibility that it is in fact Israel, demonstrating reach to Iran. But that would be crazy overkill—it doesn't take the ability to fire across the world to show you can fire across the street.

But if, on the other hand, someone else intended to send the US a message, this would be the obvious thing to do, wouldn't it? It also makes sense, if so, that the US Armed Forces are saying nothing. Suppose it was North Korea or Iran, or maybe China? This sort of demonstration of an ability to hit LA with a nuke at will would not exactly delight the general population. Mass panic would be more like it.

Of course, the military could have pretended it was one of theirs, to prevent such panic. But not if it was unexpected—it would take some time to get something coordinated. In the meantime, they'd have to first say “don't know, but clearly not threatening.” Which is exactly what they are saying.

Looks like they're working on a coordinated story, though. Late coverage seems to be converging on the suggestion that it “might” be simply a jet contrail.

See for yourself. Me, I don't buy it. I've seen a lot of jet contrails, and I've never seen one before where you could also see the bright glow of an afterburner.

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

Now, logically, of the obvious possibilities, I'd put my money on North Korea. Iran would be closer to the East Coast, and they're less advanced in weaponry generally. China would probably not want to stir the pot, and probably does not need such a demonstration.