There has been more and more support for the establishment of an ABM system since the House of Representatives overwhelmingly rejected an extension of the ABM treaty. More people are beginning to realize that while we desire a working treaty with Russia, maintaining that treaty is not worth leaving ourselves vulnerable from other nations. The United States must maintain a credible overseas presence and protect its ability to respond to international conflict. The rejection of the ABM extension "suggests that is, at long last, a growing--and bipartisan--appreciation that America's present vulnerability to ballistic missile attack is reckless as it is absurd," explained the director of the Center for Security Policy, Frank Gaffney Jr. The treaty's extension would have prevented the construction of ABM systems developed to counter high-speed missiles. The treaty outlaws any defense system that poses "a realistic threat to the strategic nuclear force" of Russia or the United States. The US should not take part in a treaty that outlaws an effective defense mechanism developed to protect us from nuclear annihilation. The treaty is designed to protect nuclear interests, not the interests of our nation in an unstable post-Cold War environment. "I hope we will take this opportunity to get out from under a treaty that imposes restrictions on our ability to defend ourselves. . .and tak

Some common words found in the essay are:
Cold War, US-China October, Treaty Russia, House Representatives, America United, Russia United, Gaffney Jr, Soviet Union, Assured Destruction, Jesse Helms, ballistic missiles, anti-ballistic missile, ballistic missile, abm treaty, systems developed, ballistic missile attack, missile systems, missile attack, anti-ballistic missile systems, nuclear weapons, treaty russia, protect american, proliferation ballistic missiles, anti-ballistic missile system, operational anti-ballistic missile,
Approximate Word count = 937
Approximate Pages = 4 (250 words per page double spaced)