I still remember the ol Reagan detractors rolling their eyes at the idea saying " you can't hit a bullet with a bullet"...

....never say never:)

Of course, that assumes it works. Which, unless there have been secret successful tests (and it is hard to secretly launch a ballistic missile to see if you can shoot it down) isn't a sure thing by any means.

Very true.

Like most deterents, your opponant merely has to think they work to be effective

Is that from the Art of War?

No, just an observation

If I have this right.. In order to shoot down the missile the following would have to happen:

1. The rocket has to be real and have a functional third stage. Something they have NOT tested yet.

2. They would actually have to launch

3. The launch would have to work

4. They would have to launch it on a trajectory close enough to the US for us to justify a counter.

5. The Pres. would have to approve the intercept

6. The Intercept would have to work

Add in the potential embarrassment of missing and thereby showing the bluff of a "working system" and/or the embarrassment to North Korea if their big weapon is plucked from the sky....

Nope. It ain't gonna happen.

It's just saber rattling on both sides.


Oh, and I see you found my "Welcome back" thread I created just for you...

So...The Patriot anti missile system worked pretty well a decade ago against short range missiles, but with advances in technology over the last decade we can't shoot down a long range missile?

Define pretty well"

refrence

I guess we can play this all day.....from the same link, in reference to action seen in 2003 during the initial invasion of Iraq -

So, improvements over 12 years led to a higher success rate. I see that as progress. So hitting a bullet with a bullet can be done.