I love when missles get shot in the air....

[bubbleheadchief]

Most companies don't own Submarines capable of shooting off a ICBM.......



It was launched some 30 miles out to sea.

Ships do go to sea and can carry static launch systems.

 

[supraman]

It was the damn Aurora Spy Plane that has been seen at Area 51. DUH!!



Also North Korean sub will a show of force to scare us. or BIN LADEN

 

[R K]

Ships do go to sea and can carry static launch systems.

Odd that someone elses submarine would blow a missle off that close to the US. Isn't 30 miles still within out boundry?

 

[phranchk]

It very well could have been an amateur rocket launch, but I think for ones that size they have to get clearance to launch so it would have been known about. Unless, of course, it was done illegally and no one wants to fess up to it now.

 

[R K]

It very well could have been an amateur rocket launch, but I think for ones that size they have to get clearance to launch so it would have been known about. Unless, of course, it was done illegally and no one wants to fess up to it now.

That contrail is huge. That's one big ass amateur rocket!!

 

[phranchk]

I keep thinking Mythbusters was somehow behind it, lol.

 

[R K]

LOL! I can see it now.

 

[bubbleheadchief]

Odd that someone elses submarine would blow a missle off that close to the US. Isn't 30 miles still within out boundry?

Depending on the country you talk to...territorial waters only extend out to about 12 miles.

 

[R K]

Depending on the country you talk to...territorial waters only extend out to about 12 miles.

Ok so then you narrow it down further. What countries have Subs and or Ships capable of blowing off a rocket that leaves that kind of contrail? It was not some small missile.



If it was not the US and I was the US Intelligence Agency, I'd be very concerned!



And thanks I wasn't sure where the Boundry and International waters met.

 

[supraman]

Russia, China, North Korea immediately come to mind for me with subs that have the capabilities to do it. Maybe not NK they might not have Ballistic subs but I know the Russians still do and I think China has one or two, could be wrong BHC would probably know that better, I'd have to reference a book I have at home.

 

[R K]

Russia, China, North Korea immediately come to mind for me with subs that have the capabilities to do it. Maybe not NK they might not have Ballistic subs but I know the Russians still do and I think China has one or two, could be wrong BHC would probably know that better, I'd have to reference I book I have at home.

So that said, if Russia and or China are lobbing off an ICBM 30 miles from one of the US's most populated Cities, it begs the question, why? HAHA...



I'm sorry I just find this a tad comical.

 

[supraman]

So that said, if Russia and or China are lobbing off an ICBM 30 miles from one of the US's most populated Cities, it begs the question, why? HAHA...



I'm sorry I just find this a tad comical.

I counter with "why not"



Also isn't Russia still pissed at us over the missile defense shield plans for poland awhile back. China I dunno maybe to prove the stuff made in China does in fact work properly.

 

[phranchk]

Russia, China, North Korea immediately come to mind for me with subs that have the capabilities to do it. Maybe not NK they might not have Ballistic subs but I know the Russians still do and I think China has one or two, could be wrong BHC would probably know that better, I'd have to reference a book I have at home.

I'd be surprised if North Korea had enough fuel to power a sub all the way across the Pacific. I would also question whether they have enough stealth submarine technology to make it that close undetected. Russia, I'm sure they have the technology. From what I've read over the years, their sub technology is actually more advanced than ours. That may not still hold true. I think Russia was way closer to having or already had subs capable of high speed travel via super cavitation. Something the US was still behind on.

 

[R K]

True but if that were the US say lobbing it between Taiwan and China, or in the Gulf of Alaska the Russians and or Chinese would be all over them.



Double standard here?



In this day in age, with all the terrorism, I would say this is probably not a good thing if there is absolutely no communication.

 

[supraman]

I'd be surprised if North Korea had enough fuel to power a sub all the way across the Pacific. I would also question whether they have enough stealth submarine technology to make it that close undetected. Russia, I'm sure they have the technology. From what I've read over the years, their sub technology is actually more advanced than ours. That may not still hold true. I think Russia was way closer to having or already had subs capable of high speed travel via super cavitation. Something the US was still behind on.

BHC can correct me but we've been ahead of the Russians for basically the entire time. Their Akula IIs were about as good as our original 688s. China has some russian designs in service as well as a few of their own Electric designs and I believe NK has one or two Chinese electrics in service.



Chinese subs link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarines_of_the_People's_Liberation_Army_Navy



Korean subs link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_North_Korean_ships#Submarines

 

[bubbleheadchief]

Russia, China, North Korea immediately come to mind for me with subs that have the capabilities to do it. Maybe not NK they might not have Ballistic subs but I know the Russians still do and I think China has one or two, could be wrong BHC would probably know that better, I'd have to reference a book I have at home.

I dont recall the status of the ruskie BNs being sea worthy and the Chinks only have two sea worthy (Xia & Jin Class).....the Xia I want to say is still being converted to a GN and the Jin I think only 1 or 2 have been built. Trust me, on this, if any foreign BN came that close to our shore, opened its missile tubes and launched, it was on the bottom within minutes of launching. There area older BNs out there, but they are LOUD and easy to tail. I just know from personal experience of what I have seen first hand, that video shows something moving at very slow pace to be an ICBM, and at an odd trajectory for the same.

 

[R K]

So IYO BC, what was it. Certainly looked like one contrail as if it were a rocket. I don't buy it was a plane.

 

[bubbleheadchief]

I'd be surprised if North Korea had enough fuel to power a sub all the way across the Pacific. I would also question whether they have enough stealth submarine technology to make it that close undetected. Russia, I'm sure they have the technology. From what I've read over the years, their sub technology is actually more advanced than ours. That may not still hold true. I think Russia was way closer to having or already had subs capable of high speed travel via super cavitation. Something the US was still behind on.

Hands down, nobody touches us Technology wise with submarines.

 

[bubbleheadchief]

So IYO BC, what was it. Certainly looked like one contrail as if it were a rocket. I don't buy it was a plane.

I tell you when I first saw the video, with out knowing what it was about, it seriously looked to me like one of the shuttle launches. Shuttles going up have a kind of "slow" lumbering look to them and leave a contrail like the video shows. I can say it definetly was NOT a cruise missile....and it just doesnt look like an ICBM to me.

 

[MassHavoc]

If it was a missile... where did it go, where did it land? If the video is being taken from a news helicopter, why are they only releasing 10 seconds of it. You'd thing a news-copter would be better equipped to get a better video, both in length and quality.... like my dick.