The events of September 11, 2001 demonstrated that weapons can be used to create mass destruction on the U.S. homeland. The actual use of weapons of mass destruction, however, would create much more casualties and damage than that inflicted by the planes used by the terrorists last fall. In short, the rise of terrorism to the people of the U.S. and its interest, both at home and abroad, does not eliminate the requirement to protect our country from the growing ballistic missile threat. Yet, despite the December 2001 announcement by the President that the U.S. would withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a National Missile Defense System that is capable of protecting the country from a limited ballistic missile attack is a long way from becoming a reality. While this paper will address five major obstacles to fielding a limited National Missile Defense system, the obstacles of recognizing the restrictions created by the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and understanding and solving the global political ramifications of fielding the system are the major focus. They are of great concern due to the political obstacles to the proposed National Missile Defense system, specifically, solving the bilateral diplomatic gamesmanship created by the present Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty between the U. S. and Russia and the diplomatic and political dilemmas that fielding a limited NMD system creates with Russia and other states of the world.