The United States' decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty signified a pivotal moment in post-Cold War arms control dynamics. Established in 1972, the treaty was designed to limit the deployment of missile defense systems, thereby fostering strategic stability between the United States and the Soviet Union. However, following the events of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration reevaluated this approach, concluding that the treaty was outdated in light of new security threats, particularly from rogue states and non-state actors. President George W. Bush formally announced the withdrawal on June 13, 2002, asserting that the treaty prevented the U.S. from developing a comprehensive missile defense system essential for national security.In proclaiming the need for a revised defense posture, Bush emphasized that the treaty no longer aligned with the realities of a post-9/11 world. The move was justified as a requirement to protect against the possibility of missiles being launched by hostile nations. The U.S. planned to develop advanced missile defense mechanisms, which were met with mixed reactions internationally. Critics, including Russian officials, viewed the withdrawal as a signal that the U.S. was departing from collaborative nuclear arms management and could potentially spark a new arms race. The decision was emblematic of a broader shift in international defense policy, moving away from multilateral treaties towards unilateral action.Bush's announcement found significant support within the U.S. defense establishment, which argued for a modernized approach to global security. The withdrawal from the ABM Treaty facilitated future developments of missile defense programs, including deployments in Europe and Asia. This period marked a transformation in the discourse around national security, where missile defense became a priority, reshaping the geopolitical landscape and affecting relations with other nuclear states. Bush's decision remains a subject of debate among policy analysts, balancing the need for contemporary military readiness against the established frameworks of arms control.