Abstract : The U.S. must critically evaluate our current ballistic missile defense (BMD) strategy. In today's geostrategic context, is it sound strategy to continue to impose 1972 ABM Treaty restrictions on BMD systems development? This study considers three alternatives with respect to the ABM Treaty and BMD. Our current policy (alternative one) is analyzed using the ends, ways and means model. This analysis covers the current state of the ballistic missile threat; the current situation with respect to the ABM Treaty; and technical risks associated with BMD systems. As a second alternative, the study examines the possibility of mutual accommodation with Russia. This alternative requires the U.S. and Russia to reach mutual accommodation on missile defense; allowing both nations some level of NMD, while maintaining mutual deterrence through "assured destruction." The Heritage Foundation's Team B Study Group proposal provides a third alternative. Team B proposes a sea- and space-based BMD system and for the U.S. to withdraw from the ABM treaty now so it will no longer arbitrarily restrain U.S. BMD. This study concludes it is critical to U.S. National Security for America to withdraw from the ABM Treaty now and deploy a BMD system, perhaps based on the Team B proposal.