Air Force to launch unarmed nuclear missile from Vandenberg overnight
The Air Force is set to launch an unarmed missile from Vandenberg Space Force Base overnight, in a demonstration of the readiness of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
Clear skies will make the spectacle easy to behold from Southern California. Residents in Oregon and Nevada as well as western parts of Utah, Arizona, and Mexico should also be able to spot the missile streaking across the sky.
The Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile is set to launch from the Santa Barbara County base sometime between 11:01 p.m. Tuesday and 5:01 a.m. Wednesday. The goal is to "demonstrate the readiness of U.S. nuclear forces and provide confidence in the lethality and effectiveness of the nation's nuclear deterrent," according to the Air Force Global Strike Command.
The Minuteman is a powerful weapon, capable of carrying three nuclear warheads that can reach independent targets more than 6,000 miles away, according to the Air Force. Its range from the Vandenberg base could span as far north as the North Pole, as far south as the closest point of Antarctica, as far west as the Philippines and as far east as Spain.
At its peak speed, the Minuteman can travel 15,000 mph — about 25 times as fast as a typical passenger jet and almost 70 times faster than the fastest Ferrari ever built. It's 59.9 feet long and weighs about 80,000 pounds.
America's ballistic missiles can reach targets around the globe about 30 minutes after launch. During the first three minutes, three solid fuel rocket motors power the missile's flight. Then, the missile follows a curve-shaped trajectory, releasing the warhead mid-course and sending it toward the target.
Tuesday night's routine test of the missile was scheduled years in advance and will be used to verify the effectiveness, readiness and accuracy of the weapon system, according to the Air Force. Per its international agreements, the United States has notified Russia and the more than 140 nations that are members of the Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation of the planned launch.
The last routine test took place on Nov. 5 when a Minuteman III was launched from the Vandenberg base and traveled 4,200 miles to the Marshall Islands. It landed at the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command's Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site, where researchers used flight data to evaluate system performance.
'These tests are demonstrative of what Striker Airmen bring to the fight if called by the president,' said Gen. Thomas A. Bussiere, commander, Air Force Global Strike Command, in a statement on the November launch. 'An airborne launch validates the survivability of our ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic missiles], which serve as the strategic backstop of our nation's defense and defense of allies and partners.'
The Air Force currently has 400 Minuteman III missiles in service at bases in Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota. These missiles have been a mainstay of America's nuclear arms force since the 1970s, and most of the system's fundamental infrastructure still uses the original equipment.
Starting in 2029, the Air Force intends to begin gradually replacing the Minuteman III with a modernized arsenal of LG-35A Sentinel missiles. Until full capability of the Sentinel missiles is achieved in the mid-2030s, the Air Force says it is committed to ensuring Minuteman III remains a viable deterrent.
America currently has the second-largest number of nuclear weapons in the world with about 5,040 warheads, according to data collected by the Federation of American Scientists. Russia has the largest stockpile with about 5,580 warheads.
The two superpowers are followed by China with about 500 warheads, France with 290 and the United Kingdom with 225.
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘Lesser-known D-Day' strikes as Pentagon purges transgender patriots serving in the U.S. military
Friday marked a grim milestone for transgender service members across the armed forces: the deadline set by the Pentagon to either resign or face involuntary separation under a Trump administration policy that legal advocates say is discriminatory, unjustified, and a profound betrayal of those who serve. Keep up with the latest in + news and politics. Under a May 15 directive, military commanders were ordered to review medical records for any diagnosis, history, or symptoms 'consistent with gender dysphoria.' Those identified and not granted a rare, nearly unobtainable high-level waiver, which requires the denial of one's identity, are being kicked out from service. The result: a systemwide purge that LGBTQ+ advocates call discriminatory, degrading, and dangerous to military readiness. Related: Meet the transgender Army lieutenant who is challenging Donald Trump's military banRelated: This trans Air Force recruit wants to jump out of planes to save others. He's suing Trump to serveRelated: Transgender Army officer Erica Vandal was born into military service. Now, she's suing Trump to stay in 'There's nothing voluntary about forced separation,' said Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, which represents transgender plaintiffs suing the administration over the ban in Talbott v. United States. 'Honorable and committed transgender servicemembers are being coerced into choreographing their own dismissal under a presidential edict that maligns their character with falsehoods — characterizations the government itself admitted in court are untrue. These are decorated veterans who served for decades, and forcing them out simply for being transgender is a shameful betrayal of American values.' The policy took effect after the U.S. Supreme Court lifted an injunction in a separate case, Shilling v. United States, the lead lawsuit challenging the ban. Commander Emily Shilling, a Navy pilot, aerospace engineer, and the first out transgender aviator cleared for tactical jet operations, is the lead plaintiff in that case out of Washington state. Speaking at the Equality PAC Pride Gala just days before the implementation of forced separation, Shilling made her position clear. 'The case was originally Shilling v. Trump, and now it's Shilling v. United States. I want to make it very clear: I am not against the United States. I serve because I love this country — even when the courts get it wrong,' she said. Related: Federal judge dismantles Trump's trans military ban in explosive hearing 'This ban does not make us stronger,' Shilling continued. 'It tells service members that their identity matters more than their performance, their sacrifice, or even their oath.' The Pentagon's order has triggered a wave of quiet exits — and agonizing decisions. Some troops are retiring early to preserve benefits. Others are being separated involuntarily under codes usually reserved for misconduct. Major Erica Vandal, a plaintiff in Talbott v. United States, is among those now being forced out. She is a West Point graduate, a Bronze Star recipient, and a veteran of Afghanistan who served with distinction for 14 years. 'The military has invested millions of dollars in training thousands of transgender servicemembers,' said Shannon Minter, legal director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which also represents Talbott plaintiffs. 'Major Vandal and others are now being forced out through a humiliating process typically reserved for misconduct that will leave a stain on their records. This mistreatment… is needlessly cruel and a shocking betrayal of our commitment to all those who serve.' Related: Federal judge roasts Trump DOJ attorney over 'frankly ridiculous' claims in transgender military ban case Second Lieutenant Nicolas Talbott, the lead plaintiff, has told The Advocate that he had no intention of resigning. 'I do not have any plans to pursue voluntary separation,' he said in May. Navy Commander Blake Dremann, a submarine logistics officer and one of the first out transgender service members, marked the day with a somber reflection online. 'Today will be a lesser-known D-Day for many transgender service members,' he wrote in a lengthy post on the social media platform Threads. 'They must 'choose' to leave voluntarily or ride out involuntary separation. I have requested my regular retirement… It feels like giving up. It feels like I will be judged for it.' Dremann, who was set to deploy for the 12th time, called the ban's deployability rationale 'made up' and listed what he called the '7 Truths' of transgender service: they are in every branch and specialty; they lead, deploy, and train others; they are welcomed and trusted by their units; and they have families and communities who support them. 'We LOVE what we do AND we are damn good at it,' he wrote. 'If merit is what matters, my gender shouldn't.' Waivers under the policy must be approved by a Senate-confirmed official—a process that many legal advocates describe as opaque and functionally unattainable since it requires the military member not to express their gender identity. The Pentagon has cut transgender troops off from SkillBridge, a civilian career prep program, and reinstated its ban on gender-affirming care. While legal challenges persist, lawmakers are highlighting the policy's immediate harm. On Thursday, Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois — a decorated Iraq War veteran and double amputee — led 22 Senate Democrats in a last-minute plea to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, urging him not to carry out what they called a 'foolhardy,' 'cruel,' and 'politically motivated' expulsion. Related: Combat vet Tammy Duckworth leads Democrats' final plea to stop Pentagon purge as trans military ban begins In a scathing letter obtained by The Advocate, Duckworth wrote that the policy 'punishes those who have volunteered to serve' and warned that it would 'harm our armed services' operational readiness and lethality.' The letter condemned the Pentagon's order to assign separation codes to transgender troops that suggest they pose a threat to national security. 'Using this discharge code is not only cruel,' it read. 'It's stupid.' For Dremann, who says he would continue serving if allowed, the impact is personal, but the fight is larger than one career. 'Our lives as service members are an example to many that need to see it to believe they can be us,' he wrote. Talbott, a reservist, said he has until July 7 to decide whether to fight separation or accept what the government calls 'voluntary' exit. 'I'm definitely feeling the weight of what this means for my thousands of fellow trans service members who are active duty and had to make their impossible decision by today,' Talbott told The Advocate on Friday. 'We are all burdened with the uncertainty of what's to come and major concerns about the widespread ramifications of the sudden dismissal of thousands of troops. I continue to find strength in the knowledge that this fight is not over, and I am confident that we will prevail in the end.' Another plaintiff, 24-year-old Air Force recruit Clayton McCallister, graduated from basic training at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas on Thursday after 7.5 weeks of grueling instruction. Despite graduating with the highest physical training scores in his dorm and receiving praise from superiors and peers alike, McCallister was told he would not be allowed to continue to technical school. 'Everybody that I worked with and worked for wants me to be in the Air Force—point blank,' McCallister said in a phone interview Friday. 'They said I was one of the best trainees they've had come through there. As far as my wingmen, they're mad about it just as much as I am.' Although McCallister technically remains on active duty, he has begun the process of separation, doing so under protest. 'It's not what I want,' he said. 'But with the uncertainty of the involuntary separation process, especially in a training environment, my wife and I just want some stability in this. With the end result likely being the same, I told them I want whatever is fastest to get the whole process over with.' He added that he's not eager to set his dreams and hard work aside, but that having been forced to decide his future, he's putting his family first and going with certainty, for now. McCallister, who trained for a career in special warfare and was preparing to enter pararescue—a highly selective field involving combat and medical rescue, said the decision to force out trans troops despite their qualifications sends a dangerous and demoralizing message. 'When I first came to training, I thought I had to prove that trans people could serve,' he said. 'But as I got deeper into it, I realized: we've already proven that, over and over. Thousands of trans service members have already done that.' McCallister said fellow trainees told him he had changed their minds about the ban. One airman who initially supported it told McCallister he now stands firmly against it after serving beside him. 'I may not have won the war,' McCallister said. 'But I won some battles here at BMT. I changed some opinions.' Now in legal limbo, McCallister is awaiting paperwork, medical evaluations, and the official processing of his discharge. He said the timeline is unclear, and his family remains in flux. 'We're just trying to find some stability again,' he said. 'It's stressful. But people here saw me for who I am. That means something.'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why ‘Good Night, and Good Luck's' 1950s story of media intimidation is eerily relevant in Trump's America
The historical echoes in 'Good Night, and Good Luck' are extraordinary. Some might even say they're eerie. On Saturday at 7pm ET, viewers around the world can see for themselves when CNN televises the blockbuster hit Broadway play starring George Clooney. The play transports viewers back to the 1950s but feels equally relevant in the 2020s with its themes of unrestrained political power, corporate timidity and journalistic integrity. Add 'Good Night, Good Luck' on CNN to your calendar: Apple / Outlook or Google The real-life drama recounted in the play took place at CBS, the same network that is currently being targeted by President Donald Trump. That's one of the reasons why the play's dialogue feels ripped from recent headlines. Clooney plays Edward R. Murrow, the iconic CBS journalist who was once dubbed 'the man who put a spine in broadcasting.' Murrow helmed 'See It Now,' a program that pioneered the new medium of television by telling in-depth stories, incorporating film clips and interviewing newsmakers at a time when other shows simply relayed the headlines. In the early '50s, Murrow and producing partner Fred Friendly were alarmed by what Friendly called in his 1967 memoir the 'problem of blacklisting and guilt by association.' At the time, the country was gripped by Cold War paranoia, some of it stoked by Senator Joseph McCarthy's trumped-up claims about communist infiltration of the government, Hollywood and other sectors. In a later era, McCarthy would have been accused of spreading misinformation and attacking free speech. Murrow and Friendly thought about devoting an episode to the senator and his investigations, but they wanted a dramatic way to illustrate the subject. They found it with Milo Radulovich, an Air Force reserve officer who was fired over his relatives' alleged communist views. Radulovich was a compelling, sympathetic speaker on camera, and Murrow's report on him not only stunned viewers across the country, but it also led the Air Force to reverse course. 'The Radulovich program was television's first attempt to do something about the contagion of fear that had come to be known as McCarthyism,' Friendly recalled. That's where 'Good Night, and Good Luck' begins — with a journalistic triumph that foreshadowed fierce reports about McCarthy's witch hunts and attempted retaliation by the senator and his allies. Clooney first made the project into a movie in 2005. It was adapted for the stage last year and opened on Broadway in March, this time with Clooney playing Murrow instead of Friendly. Both versions recreate Murrow's actual televised monologues and feature McCarthy's real filmed diatribes. 'The line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one,' Murrow said in a pivotal essay about McCarthy, uttering words that could just as easily apply to Trump's campaign of retribution. A moment later, Murrow accused McCarthy of exploiting people's fears. The same charge is leveled against Trump constantly. 'This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent, or for those who approve,' Murrow said, sounding just like the activists who are urging outspoken resistance to Trump's methods. In April, Trump issued an executive order directing the Justice Department to investigate Miles Taylor, a former Trump homeland security official who penned an essay and a book, 'Anonymous,' about the president's recklessness. This week Taylor spoke out about being on Trump's 'blacklist,' using the same language that defined the Red Scare of the '50s and destroyed many careers back then. 'People are afraid,' Taylor said on CNN's 'The Arena with Kasie Hunt.' He warned that staying silent, ducking from the fight, only empowers demagogues. Murrow did not duck. Other journalists had excoriated McCarthy earlier, in print and on the radio, but Murrow met the medium and the moment in 1954, demonstrating the senator's smear tactics and stirring a severe public backlash. Afterward, McCarthy targeted not just Murrow, but also the CBS network and Alcoa, the single corporate sponsor of 'See It Now.' McCarthy threatened to investigate the aluminum maker. 'We're in for a helluva fight,' CBS president William Paley told Murrow. The two men were friends and allies, but only to a point. Paley had to juggle the sponsors, CBS-affiliated stations across the country, and government officials who controlled station licenses. In a Paley biography, 'In All His Glory,' Sally Bedell Smith observed that two key commissioners at the FCC, the federal agency in charge of licensing, were 'friends of McCarthy.' The relationship between Paley and Murrow was ultimately fractured for reasons that are portrayed in the play. Looking back at the Murrow years, historian Theodore White wrote that CBS was 'a huge corporation more vulnerable than most to government pressure and Washington reprisal.' Those exact same words could be written today, as CBS parent Paramount waits for the Trump-era FCC to approve its pending merger with Skydance Media. Billions of dollars are on the line. The merger review process has been made much more complicated by Trump's lawsuit against CBS, in which he baselessly accuses '60 Minutes' of trying to tip the scales of the 2024 election against him. While legal experts have said CBS is well-positioned to defeat the suit, Paramount has sought to strike a settlement deal with Trump instead. Inside '60 Minutes,' 'everyone thinks this lawsuit is an act of extortion, everyone,' a network correspondent told CNN. In a crossover of sorts between the '50s and today, Clooney appeared on '60 Minutes' in March to promote the new play. He invoked the parallels between McCarthyism and the present political climate. 'ABC has just settled a lawsuit with the Trump administration,' Clooney said. 'And CBS News is in the process…' There, Jon Wertheim's narration took over, as the correspondent explained Trump's lawsuit. 'We're seeing this idea of using government to scare or fine or use corporations to make journalists smaller,' Clooney said. He called it a fight 'for the ages.' Trump watched the segment, and he belittled Clooney as a 'second-rate movie 'star'.' On stage, Clooney as Murrow challenges theatergoers to consider the roles and responsibilities of both journalists and corporate bosses. Ann M. Sperber, author of a best-selling biography, 'Murrow: His Life and Times,' found that Murrow was asking himself those very questions at the dawn of the TV age. Murrow, she wrote, sketched out an essay for The Atlantic in early 1949 but never completed it. He wrote notes to himself about 'editorial control' over news, about 'Who decides,' and whether the television business will 'regard news as anything more than a saleable commodity?' Murrow wrote to himself that we 'need to argue this out before patterns become set and we all begin to see pictures of our country and the world that just aren't true.' Seventy-six years later, the arguments are as relevant and necessary today.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration to pay nearly $5M in wrongful death lawsuit of Jan. 6 rioter shot by police
The Trump administration will pay a $4.975 million settlement in the lawsuit over the wrongful death of Ashli Babbitt, who was killed by a U.S. Capitol Police officer after storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Babbitt — a 35-year-old from California and veteran of the Air Force who went to Washington for President Donald Trump's rally — was among an early group of rioters that reached the doors of the Speaker's Lobby, adjacent to the House chamber, while lawmakers were still evacuating. Details of the settlement were released by Judicial Watch, a pro-Trump advocacy group that represented her estate and family members in the lawsuit. The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to request to comment. The settlement is likely to inflame tensions on Capitol Hill over the riot. Outgoing Capitol Police chief Thomas Manger blasted the reported settlement last month, saying it 'sends a chilling message to law enforcement nationwide, especially to those with a protective mission like ours.' As members of the mob standing near Babbitt pounded on the doors and cracked glass window panes, outnumbered police officers stepped aside and ceded the hallway to the rioters. Moments later, Babbitt is seen on video attempting to enter the lobby through a shattered window. That's when Capitol Police officer Michael Byrd fired the fatal shot. Byrd was investigated and cleared by local and federal authorities. Babbitt was the only rioter killed by police, but several others died either during or in the hours immediately after the protest. Over 100 Capitol Police officers were injured during the protest. The lawsuit was filed in California by Babbitt's family in 2024, claiming wrongful death, assault and battery, as well as negligence claims. The lawsuit was set to go to trial in 2026, but both parties agreed to the settlement. A joint filing Friday from government attorneys and Babbitt's acknowledged that a settlement was reached, but did not disclose details. 'This fair settlement is a historic and necessary step for justice for Ashli Babbitt's family. Ashli should never have been killed, and this settlement destroys the evil, partisan narrative that justified her outrageous killing and protected her killer,' said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton in a press release on the settlement. Trump has repeatedly praised Babbitt, portraying her as an innocent patriot and decrying her death at the hands of Capitol police. It's part of the Trump administration's efforts to repaint the protest on Jan. 6 as a day of patriotism and freedom of expression, rather than an unprecedented insurrection widely denounced in 2021 by Republicans and Democrats. Trump issued sweeping pardons for nearly all of those charged or under investigation for their actions on Jan. 6, including over 300 charged with assaulting the police. Numerous Jan. 6 rioters have been arrested on unrelated charges since. Kyle Cheney contributed to this report.
