Missile defense is, in my view, one of three "centerpieces" in a new collective international defense initiative, the other two being counter-terror cooperation and anti-proliferation programs for ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. Joining this "defense club" would be a mark of sanity and stability, one dividing the constructive from the destructive.

Credit the national-media-disdained Bush administration with letting the Cold War's 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty expire in 2001. It was a fossil, and though the Russians howled and still gnash their teeth, they know new technology had rendered the treaty a relic. Likewise the "Bush push" accelerated missile defense deployment, putting a basic system in place in 2004.

The defense has "layers." The Patriot PAC-3 is designed for short-range, "point-target" defense. Patriot PAC-3 is a completely different missile from the Gulf War's Patriot and is a genuine anti-missile missile. The Army's THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Air Defense) missile and the Navy's Standard-2 and Standard-3 missiles extend the "anti-missile umbrella."

Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) are longer-range, "mid-course" interceptors. The United States has 26 GBI silos in Alaska and four in California. I'd like to double that number and deploy two-dozen GBIs in Poland as part of a "Euro-shield," but Obama's 2010 defense budget cuts funding for these systems.

North Korea's July Fourth "test" is an overt threat to the United States and, in the context of Pyongyang's threat to end the Korean War armistice, is arguably an act of "renewed war." That means we must prepare for offensive action. But defensive capability gives us other options, and in that light is a remarkably useful tool for protecting peace.