Is a missile test a provocative action?

[Geo]

I guess it depends whether or not the presence of ordnance in the missile was tested as well.

[Unorthodox]

https://www.noozhawk.com/article/vandenberg_afb_tests_minuteman_iii_icbm_mum_about_outcome

Vandenberg AFB Officials Mum After Test of Minuteman III ICBM
Launch comes during Air Force Public Affairs freeze which limits information

By Janene Scully, Noozhawk North County Editor | @JaneneScully | updated logo 2:54 p.m. | April 25, 2018 | 11:34 a.m.
Share on email Share on print
1

Missile blasting off Click to view larger
A Minuteman III weapon equipped with a mock warhead blasted out of its underground silo at Vandenberg Air Force Base early Wednesday for a routine test (U.S. Air Force photo)
A Minuteman III weapon equipped with a mock warhead blasted out of its underground silo at Vandenberg Air Force Base early Wednesday for a routine test that still has the military remaining mum.

The three-stage weapon lifted off at 5:26 a.m. in the middle of the six-hour launch window that opened at 3:26 a.m.

Vandenberg Public Affairs officials refused to answer any questions, referring queries to Air Force Global Strike Command representatives in Louisiana.

Global Strike Command oversees Air Force's air-launched and ground-based nuclear weapon systems.

"Test launches provide valuable data for U.S. Strategic Command and the U.S. Air Force," Linda Frost, Global Strike Command representative, told Noozhawk. "A reliable test launch occurs when a test missile launches, completes its flight path within a designated safety corridor, the equipment functions properly, sensor data is collected, and the test reentry vehicle impacts where targeted. Though the reentry vehicle reached its intended target, the test and analysis data is not releasable to the public."

Both before and after the test, Vandenberg and Global Strike Command Public Affairs representatives were unusually mum about the mission. The military social media and websites did not include the usual post-launch announcements of the test, although the Air Force released one photo and an edited video to the launch.


 
The silence apparently can be attributed to a service-wide timeout period that has prompted a freeze on public outreach until staff undergoes retraining amid concerns more secrecy is needed even about unclassified information, a story in Defense News said.

Vandenberg’s high-profile Mars InSight spacecraft, set to head to space aboard a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket on May 5, is not affected by public affairs freeze since it’s a mission for NASA.

The military routinely conducts Minuteman III test launches from Vandenberg to gather data about the weapon system’s accuracy and reliability. In the past, Air Force officials has said the tests also serve as a deterrent to the nation's foes.

The tests typically occur a few times a year from Vandenberg and include a task force from the weapon’s home base.

Approximately 400 Minuteman weapons sit on alert around F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming; Minot AFB, South Dakota, and Malmstrom AFB, Montana.

The last Minuteman test occurred in August, but another planned for February was mysteriously canceled after Vandenberg Public Affairs staff sent out a press release announcing the mission but never followed up to say it would not happen. It’s believed the test was canceled due to a truce declared for the Olympic Games held in South Korea.

Rick Wayman, director of programs for the Santa Barbara-based Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, said he was disappointed Wednesday's test occurred hours before the start of a peace summit between South Korea and North Korea.

“There’s certainly always an element, I think, with a lack of communication between the Air Force, the military at large and our diplomats,” Wayman said. “At such a sensitive time that we’re in right now in terms of peace negations with North Korea, I would have hoped for more sensitivity around this issue.”

Wayman is in Geneva for the United Nations for meetings on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

"I always remain hopeful that diplomacy will prevail and that was what I was hoping for in this case," he said. "I was very disappointed that they did this. Of course, this doesn't mean the end of diplomacy in the Korea issue, but I feel like it's a blow, I feel like this situation would have been better off had we refrained."

— Noozhawk North County editor Janene Scully can be reached at [email protected]. Follow Noozhawk on Twitter: @noozhawk, @NoozhawkNews and @NoozhawkBiz. Connect with Noozhawk on Facebook.

[Buster's Uncle]

SO this is probably international measuring-contest stuff?

[Unorthodox]

Kim cancels test in good faith for olympics:  We follow suit. 

Kim cancels test in good faith for peace talks:  We launch anyway hours before talks start. 

Draw your own conclusions. 

[Buster's Uncle]

I wanna make a joke about it not being Kim with tiny hands...

[Rusty Edge]

My conclusion is that Bolton doesn't want peace.  Well, I guess that merely supports what I already know/believe. I'm forgetting the "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity alone " maxim.

[E_T]

Yes, true, but in this case....

[Green1]

A missile test is not provocation by itself. There are uses ranging from defense, communications, learning, employing your smarter people so they don't leave you, and space exploration if you get good enough.

But, it is provocation if you are putting out propaganda and having your kids scream "death to whatever" while doing so.

It would be like someone taking a dagger and stabbing a picture of someone while yelling, "I hate you! I hate you! Die! Die! Die!"

Now yes, that person may have legit uses for a dagger. It cuts boxes, can be used for hunting, or possibly used if someone breaks in the house. But, if that person is screaming hate while wielding the dagger and practicing while yelling your name hatefully mentally preparing themselves if they decide to stab you....

Well, you may want to consider separating such a person from that weapon. Or at least not be in a place that contains you, that person, and said dagger.

[Unorthodox]

! No longer available

[bvanevery]

But, it is provocation if you are putting out propaganda and having your kids scream "death to whatever" while doing so.

What if you don't do any of that?  Indeed if you claim in Soviet Doublespeak style, "this is no threat at all" ?  Are there facts on the ground that preclude anyone accepting a government's say-so at face value?

c.f. "Our nuclear enrichment is for peaceful purposes."

[Bearu]

A C.P. line argues the missile tests of these countries represent the necessary defense of the countries from the provocative actions of aggressive foreign powers. The modern world allows these foreign powers to tear a country into a tiny shred of its former self through the inclusion of violence and instability into the country. The presence of the provocative rhetoric from the hostile foreign powers demonstrate the important defensive influence of missiles from the destruction of regime change proposals seen in the 1983 invasion of Granada through the numerous attempts on the life of Fidel Castro into the recent murder and destruction of Muammar Gaddafi and Libya. I stand in solidarity with the countries, despite disagreements on specific ideological issues, to defend the nation from the aggressive intervention of a foreign entity while the foreign entity describes the missile tests as an "aggressive" action

[Green1]

Well.. heres the thing, Bvanevery... It works both ways.

Example:

Nearest convention to me is Coast Con in Biloxi, MS. Nevermind New Orleans is a more populated town.. the hotel rents are sky high because it is touristy.

You know what the problem with CoastCon is? Every year it is different.

One year, one group is in, the next year another is. There is no telling if what brought you there last year will be there the next depending on what power struggles exist.

So, it's impossible to make a deal with them.

Same with the US. You get a deal, the next administration has different ideas. Can you make a deal with that?

Or continue reciting "death to America" to keep your power because you (should) outlive many presidents?

[bvanevery]

I stand in solidarity with the countries, despite disagreements on specific ideological issues, to defend the nation from the aggressive intervention of a foreign entity while the foreign entity describes the missile tests as an "aggressive" action

I'm currently reading Mao: The Unknown Story, 2005.  It's pretty illuminating about what "Communism" is.  Mainly it's killing people who don't obey, and also killing lots of people who do obey, because leaders are interested in personal power.  North Korea is run by a violent, oppressive despot, it's that simple.  I'll wager that you'll find very little Communism or Socialism if you stare at it in detail.  I haven't done that exercise wtih North Korea yet.  I'm doing it for Mao's China, which was mostly the product of Stalin's Russia, and I see no reason why the North Korean story will be any different.

What you are defending, is the principle that a warlord should be defending himself.  If you think you are in solidarity with any other principle, you are mistaken.  Framing it as Capitalism vs. Communism etc. is a joke.  To this I say simply, yes, warlords try to defend themselves.  And foreign powers try to constrain rogue nations.  Such is the way of the world.

Green1: deals last until they don't.  Consider how stable US - Cuba relations were, for decades.

[Bearu]

"It's pretty illuminating about what "Communism" is.  Mainly it's killing people who don't obey, and also killing lots of people who do obey, because leaders are interested in personal power.  North Korea is run by a violent, oppressive despot, it's that simple.  I'll wager that you'll find very little Communism or Socialism if you stare at it in detail. "

    I hear echoes of a predetermined position on the issue. If you want to discuss the topic, then the removal and identification of preconceptions remain a necessary component of the discussion.
    The breadth of the communist and socialist movements extends into a diverse range of fields, and the framing of ideology in the terms of Maoism and Mao Zedong thought represents a singular portion of the movements. The breadth of socialist and communist thoughts extends from the left wing communist movements  of Luxembourgism and trade syndicalists into the right wing communist movements of Stalinism through the fusion of communism into the nationalist ideologies of groups like the Khmer Rouge.
    Your  interpretation of the ideology in the above statement also fails to consider both the horrendous conditions of places like China before the Chinese revolution and civil war and the sometimes remarkable improvements in the living conditions, health, and social indicators of the countries in the years after the revolutions. The premier concern of the socialist policies focus on the inability of Capitalism to provide a stable social network for the health, wealth, and living conditions of the citizens without the drastic damage of the economic system in terms of cyclical depressions, exploitation, and occupation of foreign lands.
   

"I haven't done that exercise wtih[sic] North Korea yet.  I'm doing it for Mao's China, which was mostly the product of Stalin's Russia, and I see no reason why the North Korean story will be any different."

     The actions of Mao in China derive from the conditions of the country in the periods before the final revolution while the country resided in a semi feudalistic conditions with the powers of Britain, France, USA, and Russia wanting to divide the country into a pie for economic resources starting with the Opium War in the 1840's. The country experienced a dramatic growth of brutal warlords, political intrigue, and damage from the royalists with the progressive weakening of the Qing Dynasty in the period after 1840 through the final collapse of the Dynasty in 1912. Does a revolution ever represent a nice and peaceful task like writing an essay or embroidering a piece of silk? The answer remains a resounding no, and the ability to comprehend the necessity of the actions of the dictatorships in the periods around the periods of war represents a critical component of political education.
     The current ideology of Juche developed in the 1970's after a schism between the development of Dengism in China and the developments of Khrushchev in the early 1960's. The majority of North Korean policy from the 1970's  period forward results from the isolationist policies of the country beyond the assistance of Russia after the expulsion of Nikita Khrushchev.

"What you are defending, is the principle that a warlord should be defending himself.  If you think you are in solidarity with any other principle, you are mistaken.  Framing it as Capitalism vs. Communism etc. is a joke.  To this I say simply, yes, warlords try to defend themselves.  And foreign powers try to constrain rogue nations.  Such is the way of the world."

     What makes the right of a country to stifle the self determination of another country against the security weaker nation? Does the statement condone the animalistic philosophy of "Might makes right? Does the final statement condone a fatalist attitude of "oh well, the stronger nation wants to pillage and plunder the land, and we should accept the action as an acceptable concept?" The notion represents a disgusting concept, and the action of the violence represents an expanding factor in many poor communities. What good does a supposed liberty provide beyond an analgesic for the  conscience of wealthy people while an unsustainable economic system brutalizes the populations of other countries in the world for the acquisition of economic and financial resources ?
     I recommend the opening of a new topic to cover the discussion.

[Lorizael]

Does a revolution ever represent a nice and peaceful task like writing an essay or embroidering a piece of silk? The answer remains a resounding no, and the ability to comprehend the necessity of the actions of the dictatorships in the periods around the periods of war represents a critical component of political education.

Gandhi's words weren't actually backed with nuclear weapons.