Limited Missile Defense by 2004. The 2 big arguments against this have always struck me as particularly ridiculous.

The first says that if we have a shield other countries will be forced to build more missiles. How are we any worse off with the shield then without it? Without it they can kill millions with one bomb. With it they can kill millions with hundreds of bombs. It won't protect us absolutely, but it will protect us from the one or two held by those who, because they are small or have no actual country, cannot be deterred by the threat of retaliation. A nation big enough to have thousands of nukes is also big enough to be worried about retaliation. It's the small people who don't give a damn that you need to worry about, and that's what this protects against.

The second argument against it is that chances are if we're hit by a nuke it won't be a missile, but a suitcase type nuke. So what? Protecting against the one doesn't preclude protecting against the other. This argument just seems to totally ignore the fact that though the suitcase type is more likely there is still the threat of missiles and to protect against the one and not the other is just short-sighted and likely merely a rationalization for somebody who believes in the first reason.