Rachel Maddow doesn’t think that you can shoot down incoming missiles with missiles. I am NOT KIDDING.
Watch this if you like: (warning – has really vulgar language, because they are liberals)
Or read the transcript: (H/T Newsbusters)
STEVE MOORE, WALL STREET JOURNAL: The other tragedy, David, of what’s happened in the last 20 years is the reason Reykjavik fell apart was because Reagan didn’t want to give up SDI or Star Wars. And here we are, you know, what 20 years later and we still don’t have a missile defense system in this country.
DAVID STOCKMAN: We shouldn’t.
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: They’ve never worked.
MOORE: I don’t want to get blown up.
MADDOW: You know what? Here’s the country, here’s the kind of thing you put over like a cake to protect the cake from flies. Missiles don’t work that way. That’s the whole idea of SDI. We’ll protect ourselves by shooting missiles at other missiles. It’s never worked in a test. We spent billions on it.
MOORE: It’s worked.
MADDOW: And anybody who understands this knows it can never work.
MOORE: If you don’t think it works, then why did the Russians not want us to do it?
MADDOW: The Russians were very happy to sign this thing.
MOORE: No they weren’t. They didn’t want us to do SDI because they knew they didn’t want us to blow up their missiles.
MADDOW: You know what? If you think you can shoot the bullet with the other bullet, you can have an awesome life in Annie Oakley’s side show, but you should not be in charge of billions of dollars of the defense budget. It’s such a hysterical fantasy. I love it.
Newsbusters writes:
It appears Maddow must have been out of the country during Desert Storm when Patriot missiles were used to take out Iraqi Scud missiles aimed at Israel and Saudi Arabia. Although their success rate was a great source of debate at the time (see the July 1996 Center for Defense Information study), no one disputes that some Scuds were indeed shot out of the air.
More importantly, at least twelve countries are currently using Patriot technology as part of their missile defense programs.
Even Japan has missile defense technology:
And India can do it, too.
You can shoot down incoming ballistic missiles from mobile launchers, fixed launchers and naval launchers. In fact, even fighters can intercept incoming ballistic missiles.
In military simulations, I’ve scrambled my F-14 Tomcat CAP to intercept vampires fired at my carrier battle group. (My CAP usually consists of 1 E-2C Hawkeye and 4 F-14D Tomcats because I really like the range on the AIM-54C Phoenix AAM).
Ships will regularly shoot down incoming SSMs. In fact, that is the whole point of the AEGIS missile defense system that is deployed on CG Ticonderoga and DDG Arleigh Burke vessels.
IN FACT, in simulations I have actually shot down vampires using this Phalanx close-in weapon system made by Raytheon. That thing is just a big machine gun used for point defense if all other missile defense systems fail.
Should we really have Democrats like Rachel Maddow in charge of national defense?
UPDATE: Here are a couple more examples I found:
Related posts
WINTERY KNIGHT 
Hahah!
LikeLike
The point of me posting this is to suggest a question. Should we trust people who know nothing about war to run national defense? Should we trust people who know nothing about running a business to run the economy? Should we trust people who hire other people to raise their kids and send them to fancy private schools to run social policy and education?
LikeLike
Ummm, I understand your point, but … Rachel Maddow is an American radio personality, television host, and political commentator. She isn’t running anything except her mouth.
While we shouldn’t have people with no sense of reality running national defense, it is also necessary (for checks and balances) to have civilians controlling the military. Difficult balance there. Ignorance like Maddow’s is one problem; belligerence and hate (for her opponents and detractors) is another. We certainly do NOT need a willfully ignorant, angry liberal running national defense.
LikeLike
Well, then should people who listen to Rachel Maddow consider her to be an authority on the things she is talking about?
Consider these two other examples:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/01/22/rachel-maddow-tells-bill-maher-100-falsehood-about-reaganomics
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2009/03/10/rachel-maddow-still-cant-get-it-right-about-hoover
LikeLike
People should be careful about accepting ANY talking head as an authority when their job and expertise is to … talk. “I’m here to express my opinions professionally.” Why in the world would anyone accept that person as an authority? (Or, reading between the lines, I’m agreeing with you.)
LikeLike
Wow. That’s bad. I agree that we shouldn’t accept “talking heads” as authorities, but really… This is her job. She gets PAID to do research and (sort of) know what she’s talking about. Where is the work ethic these days? ;)
LikeLike
I don’t mind if she doesn’t know, but don’t be so snarky then.
LikeLike