I think it is believable, and it doesn't mean we don't have existing missile defense systems in place (you can read about the tests of those defense systems in the media). I interpret this to mean that they're thickening the current ballistic missile defense systems. A recent article said the current systems are only 60% effective when they have conducted preplanned tests. Clearly hitting a bullet in flight with another bullet isn't easy. Suspect the success ratio will decrease when real world intercepts are attempted when there is limited or no warning, and there is bad weather on top of that. All the more reason to put more systems in place.
Also a reason to focus on the pre-emptive strike. Yes, the preemptive strike comes with a lot of risk baggage, but so does getting struck by a nuclear weapon.
Bookmarks