U.S. missile test intercepts 2 targets

Fort Worth Star Telegram ^ | 4/27/2007 | AUDREY McAVOY

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

From the official US Navy website:

070426-N-0000X-001 PACIFIC OCEAN (April 26, 2007) - A Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) is launched from the guided missile cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70), during a joint Missile Defense Agency, U.S. Navy ballistic missile flight test. Approximately three minutes later, the SM-3 intercepted a unitary (non-separating) ballistic missile threat target, launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawaii. Within moments of this launch, the USS Lake Erie also launched a Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) against a hostile air target in order to defend herself. The test was the eighth intercept, in 10 program flight tests. The test was designed to show the capability of the ship and its crew to conduct ballistic missile defense and at the same time defend herself. This test also marks the 27th successful hit-to-kill intercept in tests since 2001. U.S. Navy photo (RELEASED)

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Suck it, Kim Jong.

[Lazamataz]

We be bad mofos.

[Badeye]

Excellent news. I remember the ridiculous DNC talking point ‘you can’t hit a bullet with a bullet’.

[Kryptonite]

Very well done.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Looks like we can, eh ?

[Constitution Day]

Freakin’ SWEET! Great job, Navy.
I love the pic! Why isn’t this Breaking News?

Oh, I forgot. It isn’t about Rudy G. and how he kicks puppies, or trips grannies.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

This is the 27th successful hit-to-kill intercept. So much for the DemonRats and their “missile defense is nothing but a Reagan dream, it’ll never work” crap. As for the liberal M.I.T. physics asshats who said that they’ve already proven that missile defense is impossible, I wonder where their $0.02 is on this now?

[Mach5]

Senator Reid is saddened by this event....

[Badeye]

If you can ‘hit’ an asteriod millions of miles out in space, its pretty clear you can hit a missile coming right at you from several thousand miles away. Its just a matter of technology backing up some advanced mathematics.

We spend a lot of time discussing President Bush’s failures, real or perceived.

This is one of those things he backed 100%, took a ton of heat over, and got it done anyway.

[Lx]

That’s cool, I’ve seen the Kauai’s range from an ocean trip and it looks cool.

[Islander7]

Makes me proud!

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I’m told that this is based on Aegis technology that the Clintons did not want to see improved to the current level. Their two terms cost us eight years of development time.

[Badeye]

“I’m told that this is based on Aegis technology that the Clintons did not want to see improved to the current level. Their two terms cost us eight years of development time.”

Yep. The Clinton’s disliked missile defense so much West Wing did several episodes designed to mock the concept.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Friggin’ defeatist losers.

[LasVegasMac]

It isn’t about Rudy G. and how he kicks puppies, or trips grannies.

Wow......what a mean guy.

[Constitution Day]

Why, I hear he even burned down the orphanage. < /s>

[Badeye]

Frightened sheep in my opinion. the leftwingnuts worshipped Communism for decades as the ‘viable alternative’ to Capitalism. I don’t think those still alive from the 50’s and 60’s ever got over its eventual collapse.

I also think thats why they hate Reagan as much, if not more, than President Bush. They just know better than to give voice to it after the shock of a nation that went into mourning for Reagan when he passed on a level not seen since November of 1963.

[TwilightDog]

What is the connection between the Standard Missiles two and three and the THAAD?

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Theodore Postol, “Star Wars” critic, was trained in nuclear engineering and has moved on to faculty of “Science, Technology, and International Security”. He is not an expert on ballistics, guidance or instrumentation, the areas he fond of spouting off about in public.

His reputation is based on little more than pettyfoggery and quibbling. He is often demonstrably wrong in his assertions and generally makes untenable claims without any hard evidence to back them up.