Charles V. Peña and Ivan Eland

About the author: Charles V. Peña and Ivan Eland are defense policy experts at the Cato Institute, a libertarian public policy research foundation.

The debate over missile defense has been distorted by rhetorical excesses from both proponents and opponents. Opponents of missile defense should recognize that a threat to the United States does exist and that a national missile defense system can enhance America's security. However, such a system should be land-based and designed solely to protect America from a limited missile attack. More grandiose space-based missile defense systems touted by some proponents should be rejected as being unnecessary and potentially dangerous.

To date, the debate surrounding national missile defense (NMD) has been dominated by political rhetoric. Supporters (usually conservatives) often paint...