I'm about 97% convinced that we have satellite capacity to zap the missle on the pad. I don't know whether it would be like an EMP pulse or laser or what. But I believe we could disable it from space.
I'm convinced we could disable it from UFO type platforms.
But whether the puppet masters would allow such technology ATT, is another matter. I doubt it. They seem determined to keep such things in reserve for support of and empowerment of the global government.
I am not too familar with EMP type producing weapons, but certainly kinetic weapons could do similar damage by using shaped charges to destroy missiles by creating powerful shock waves.
It should be at least theoretically possible to generate shockwaves that would be like having to have a missile withstand the force of an impact with 10 foot concrete barrier that such a kinetic weapon (non-nuclear) might produce with shaped charges. We have invested a lot in deep diving torpedos that have to be able to destroy a Russian sub at deeps up to 3000 feet (the maximum depth of the Alpha class).
There are possible defenses to EMP discharges, but I have no idea of what size EMP might be required depending on the technology used to counter act the EMP discharge...
Something that can destroy Titanium built submarines at a depth of 3000 feet would probably be able to destroy missiles with changes to how the kinetic energy is expended...
But Laser Technology might work at a greater distance in thinner air. So a B52 orbiting at 50,000 feet might have a slightly better range than something at 1000 feet (because of the air density).
During World War II, we were an incredibly productive nation - the Manhattan project probably would have taken longer if there was not a war going on.
In many defense projects, draggin ones feet is rewarded by the government in more money being spent.
I saw an excellent example of this at GE in the 1980s on a major project. GE turned down a capital investment of about $600,000 in computers at the time. Why? Well it was my belief that it was not beneficial (from the profit standpoint) to make GE's engineer and computer programmers more productive.
In this particular case, though, the computer equipment was approved, not based on all the projects, but I asked that the proposal be re-submitted with just the project GE was working on. The proposal sailed through the send time, and had to have the signature of the head of GE Aerospace.
The reason it sailed through was that GE stood to gain a foothold on a major project that was worth billions of dollars (which GE did not have).
So if there was a real threat, we might have a number of programs in production that may be in various stages for testing and pre-production work.
However, I would have to say that much of the testing and procedures that DOD has in place is worthwhile.
There have been real lemons by the DOD, though.
I consider the USS South Dakota to be one of them.
It originally was being designed as a battleship to withstand 14 inch armor piercing shells. But late in the game, it was re-cast as a ship to withstand 16 inch armor piercing shells.
But the problem at that time was that the US abided by the treaty restrictions in place prior to WWII.
And some might say that some of the bugs in the USS South Dakota were either fixed after she went into some fierce battles or never fixed at all.
But even in that case, the Navy probably learned some things that were corrected in the Iowa class - which is probably the best Battleship class ever built - 35 knot maximum speed achieved by at least one of the ships, and fire control radar at a time that this technology was a significant advantage in a surface action. (As Admiral Lee demonstrated with a 10 to 15 minute engagement off bloody Guadacanal that sunk his opposing battleship, and literally scared off the rest of the Japs in the Second Battle of Salvo Island).
Of course, that type of technology was similar to the M1 tanks obliterating their Iraqi tanks in the oil fires in the Gulf War of the early 1990's. Our tanks could easily see and destroy the Russian built tanks whereas the Iraqis had not way at that time to see our tanks because of Saddam's stupidity in lighting the oil fires...
In one case (Guadacanal), it was a night action that hid our ships from the Japanese for the gunfire duel (with the exception of the unfortunate luck of the USS South Dakota that moved in front of a burning US destroyer (struck in the torpedo attack). In the second case, the oil fires might it difficult to find the enemy through normal means in the tank to tank engagement.
Missile engagments have a totally different factor - the speed of the incoming missiles and perhaps the altitude that they might obtain (sub-orbital or orbital path at supersonic speeds exceeding Mach 5).
It is fun to speculate, and use de-classified technology as examples (i.e., World War II battleships).