U.S. Air Force test-launches nuclear-capable, hypersonic Minuteman III ICBM
The test launch occurred shortly after Russia test-launched its Yars ICBM missile, and the Minuteman III completed a 4,200-mile course in about 22 minutes at a speed of 15,000 mph and splashed down at a test range near the Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific Ocean, the Daily Mail reported.
"Today's Minuteman III test launch is just one of the ways the Department of the Air Force demonstrates the readiness, precision and professionalism of U.S. nuclear forces," Acting Secretary of the Air Force Gary Ashworth said in an online announcement.
"It also provides confidence in the lethality and effectiveness of the nation's nuclear deterrence mission," Ashworth said.
The launch occurred at 1 a.m. from the base that is located in California's Santa Barbara County and is intended to "demonstrate the readiness of U.S. nuclear forces and provide confidence in the lethality and effectiveness of the nation's nuclear deterrent," the Air Force Global Strike Command said ahead of the planned launch.
"This test is routine and was scheduled years in advance," the AFGSC said. "Consistent with previous test launches, this ICBM test launch will validate and verify the effectiveness, readiness and accuracy of the weapon system."
U.S. officials transmitted pre-launch notification of the test-launch to 140 nations in accordance with the Hague Code of Conduct and notified the Russian government as required by bilateral agreements between the two nations.
The Minuteman III ICBM is a hypersonic missile capable of traveling at a speed equal to at least five times the speed of sound and is capable of striking Moscow within 30 minutes of its launch.
It can carry up to three nuclear warheads and can reach targets more than 6,000 miles distant, the Los Angeles Times reported.
The missile has a maximum speed of 15,000 mph, measures nearly 60 feet in length and weighs about 80,000 pounds.
While in flight, three solid rocket fuel engines power the missile, which follows a curved trajectory before releasing its warheads to strike their intended targets.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
White House lowers expectations for Trump-Putin summit
The White House is lowering expectations for any breakthrough from President Trump's summit on Friday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, using terms like 'listening session' and 'feel-out meeting' to describe the planned discussion about the war in Ukraine. Trump and other administration officials have indicated Friday's summit in Alaska is not meant to be one that will bring an end to the fighting in Ukraine, which began in 2022 when Russian forces invaded the country. The president and his team have also largely avoided predicting any deliverables that might come out of the meeting and noted that it will likely take a follow-up summit involving both Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for any concrete progress to be made on a ceasefire. 'There's a very good chance that we're going to have a second meeting that will be more productive than the first,' Trump said Wednesday. 'Because the first is I'm going to find out where we are and what we're doing.' The White House has steered clear of making any firm commitments about what will come out of Friday's gathering in Anchorage, and details have been scarce as officials work to rapidly pull the event together on one week's notice. The president himself as offered mixed signals about what will happen. Trump is expected to meet one-on-one with Putin, press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, and the event will take place at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. But other logistics were still being sorted out as the summit approached. 'This is a listening exercise for this president,' Leavitt told reporters on Tuesday. 'Look, only one party that's involved in this war is going to be present. And so this is for the president to go and to get, again, a more firm and better understanding of how we can hopefully bring this war to an end.' Trump is a wild card in Friday's meeting. He has avoided setting expectations for the event, telling reporters earlier this week that the conversation with Putin 'will be good, but it might be bad.' Trump on Wednesday threatened 'severe consequences' if Russia did not stop the fighting after this week's summit, then minutes later acknowledged that he is unlikely to be able to get Putin to stop targeting Ukrainian civilians. And he said he hoped to arrange a second meeting quickly involving Putin and Zelensky, or that perhaps a second meeting would not happen at all. 'If the first one goes OK, we'll have a quick second one. I would like to do it almost immediately,' Trump said. 'I think the second meeting – if the second meeting takes place. Now there may be no second meeting, because if I feel it's not appropriate to have it because I didn't get the answers that we have to have, then we're not going to have a second meeting.' Some critics have bemoaned that Trump is giving Putin a win simply by holding the meeting on U.S. soil without Zelensky or leadership from Ukraine present. And European allies have approached Friday's meeting with caution, expressing appreciation for Trump's efforts while bracing for the possibility that he may go off script. Trump has in recent days suggested Ukraine may have to give up land to Russia as part of a peace agreement, something Ukrainian leaders have said is a non-starter. 'Pressure on Russia works. Peace has no alternative. Clear results are needed. Together, we can deliver them,' Zelensky said in a statement after a Wednesday call with Trump and European leaders. Trump has said he intends to call Zelensky and European leaders upon the conclusion of his meeting with Putin on Friday. The president and his allies have long argued there is little harm in holding a meeting or bettering relations with another country, and officials have made the case that this president takes a different approach to diplomacy. 'People have to understand, for President Trump, a meeting is not a concession,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio told radio host Sid Rosenberg. 'If you watch some of the news…these people are going nuts. Oh, this is – what a win for Putin; he gets a meeting. He doesn't view it that way,' Rubio said. 'A meeting is what you do to kind of figure out and make your decision. I want to have all the facts. I want to look this guy in the eye. And that's what the president wants to do.'
Atlantic
24 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Will Trump Get His Potemkin Statistics?
In 2013, ahead of a scheduled visit from President Vladimir Putin to the small Russian town of Suzdal, local officials worried that he would be disappointed by the dilapidated buildings. In a modern revival of Grigory Potemkin's possibly apocryphal deception of Catherine the Great, they slapped exterior wallpaper onto buildings, hoping to hide the decaying concrete behind illustrations of charming village homes. It was intended as a comforting myth to keep Putin happy. (In the end, Putin never showed up.) On August 1, President Donald Trump demanded a comforting myth of his own, one that could have far greater consequences for the world economy. He began by firing a skilled economist, Erika McEntarfer, from her job running the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for a cardinal sin that ordinarily exists only in dictatorships: producing 'bad numbers.' In authoritarian regimes, good numbers are always right, and if anyone says otherwise—if they are foolish enough to produce statistics that suggest the economy is souring or that Dear Leader isn't producing historic growth and blockbuster jobs numbers—then it's curtains on their career (if not their life). As is so often the case with Trump, reality itself seems to be ' rigged.' Time to fix reality with Potemkin statistics. This week, Trump named E. J. Antoni, the chief economist at the Heritage Foundation, as McEntarfer's replacement, subject to the charade of Senate Republican rubber-stamping that has become so common in Trump's second term. As with despots throughout the world, Trump selected Antoni on the two criteria that consistently warm a dictator's heart: loyalty and ideology. Antoni, who contributed to Project 2025, has a résumé that's thin on qualifications. Five years ago, according to his LinkedIn profile, he completed his doctorate in economics at Northern Illinois University, after a short stint teaching at Sauk Valley Community College. His only scholarly publication—ever—appears to be his doctoral thesis, which has been cited by other economists a grand total of one time. That sole citation came from a policy briefing written by Antoni's then-colleague at the archconservative Texas Public Policy Foundation. Tim Naftali: Trump just did what not even Nixon dared to do Antoni has shown ignorance of basic economic data, including in a recent social-media post supporting Trump's tariffs, in which he appeared to not grasp that a major index of import prices did not include tariffs in its published data. (Several established economists helpfully pointed this out to him.) Menzie Chinn, a renowned economics professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, has chronicled a wide array of Antoni's basic misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and mistakes. In other words, Antoni would probably not get hired as a junior economist at the agency he's now slated to run. By contrast, McEntarfer received her doctorate from Virginia Tech in 2002, then worked as an economist in a variety of roles at the Census Bureau—under both Republican and Democratic presidents—as well as in top jobs at the Treasury Department and the White House Council of Economic Advisers. Last year, she was confirmed by the Senate to run the Bureau of Labor Statistics on a bipartisan 86–8 vote. Then-Senators J. D. Vance and Marco Rubio both voted to confirm her. During her time in public service—not in academia—she produced at least 44 publications, which have been cited by other scholars 1,327 times. But what Antoni lacks in credentials and expertise he makes up for in his MAGA worldview. On X, he follows a who's who of Trump acolytes, including Carpe Donktum, a prolific meme creator who once shared an AI-generated video depicting Trump killing journalists and critics, and Jack Posobiec and Mike Cernovich, who both promoted the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory. International investors can see this, too—and they understand that nonpartisan government officials devoted to statistical accuracy do not behave like this. Even conservative economists can see what's going on. Stan Veuger, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, has noted that economists had hoped that Trump would appoint a competent, fair expert who could ensure confidence in the government's data. 'EJ Antoni is really the opposite of that,' Veuger lamented. 'Even the people who may be somewhat sympathetic to his economic policy views don't think he's qualified.' Yet again, the United States is lurching toward dynamics previously seen only in authoritarian regimes and dictatorships. Autocrats and wannabe despots consistently cook the books, manipulating statistics to make their nation's economy appear better than it is. This comes at a cost: Once the statistical facade peels away, providing a glimpse of the crumbling structure below, investors stop believing the data. Eventually they flee, taking their money with them. The economist Luis Martinez has used satellite images to test whether dictators were overstating their country's growth rate. (Because real, sustained GDP growth inevitably produces increased light pollution in developing countries as cities expand and economic activity increases, nighttime images from space have proved to be a good proxy for economic growth.) Martinez's data showed that the answer was yes—and by a lot. The leaders he studied were overstating GDP numbers by up to 35 percent. And they weren't just fudging the numbers; they were almost certainly making them up. Similarly, after Rwanda—which has long promoted itself as an African success story under the economic management of its dictator, Paul Kagame—boasted that it had reduced poverty by 6 percent over a five-year period, independent researchers concluded that poverty had actually increased by 5 to 7 percent. Other studies have confirmed that authoritarians frequently manipulate statistics strategically, ensuring that bad news never coincides with election cycles. Rogé Karma: The mystery of the strong economy has finally been solved A dictator's ability to snap their fingers and transform economic malaise into a perceived miracle is an exercise of unconstrained personal power. But it is also a sign of weakness—one that inflicts significant damage to a country's economy. That's because economic investments involve putting capital at calculated risk, and those risks become unattractive when the underlying calculations are not based on trustworthy information. By contrast, leaders in functioning democracies tie themselves to the economic masts of independent institutions that are designed to speak truth to power—and investors trust them accordingly with their money. Effective decision making is impossible without reliable, accurate information. And many crucial decisions in economic governance and investment rely on the BLS jobs numbers. The monthly reports sway Federal Reserve decisions, affect pension-payout calculations, and are factored into virtually every determination involving major global investment. Economists have expressed their worries that if the jobs data are even perceived as being subject to political pressure, international lending to the United States will decline. When Fox News highlighted this week that Antoni had previously expressed his desire to get rid of the monthly jobs reports, the value of the dollar fell shortly thereafter. Antoni might not be able to manipulate the statistics themselves. Many economists are involved in compiling the data, and cooking the books without drawing notice would be difficult. But in the current American information environment, Antoni could do enormous damage simply by giving misleading political ammunition to the MAGA movement, dressed up in the official guise of a previously nonpartisan office. Antoni presumably has few qualms about the political pressure he's inevitably going to face from Trump; after all, he has accepted a nomination for a job that now clearly comes with a risk of being fired if the official statistics aren't to the president's liking. And that means the clock is ticking for Antoni even if he is confirmed, because Potemkin villages all eventually crumble.
Epoch Times
25 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
What Would Be a Decent Outcome of the Trump–Putin Meeting?
(Left) U.S. President Donald Trump at Andrews Air Force Base, Md., on July 29, 2025. (Right) Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin in Moscow on May 8, 2025.
