In the United States of America, the debate concerning an anti-rocket shield, baptized Missile Defense (MD), is one of the main preoccupations of the political and administrative elite. As it implies a programme which is very important for America's security, this dilemma interests politicians from all over the world, i.e. EU, China, Japan, as well as America's "friends" from South-eastern Asia. All these states assume various positions and try to influence the decisions made by Americans. The most interesting position I have ever met is that of EU, whose officials are not interested exclusively in geopolitical calculations. I'd like to mention the fact that MD is meant to throw down up to 200 intercontinental ballistic rockets that might be directed against USA. What could this anti-rocket shield offer to the Americans? Invulnerableness to the attacks coming from states such as Iran, Iraq or North Korea, according to the official version. Invulnerableness to the Chinese attacks, according to some foreign analysts. And a strategical advantage over Russia, consisting in the annulment of Moscow's residual capacity of replying very aggressively to a potential initial American attack, according to the severest critics of this programme, whose group includes the Russians. The Americans also claim that such a shield might discourage China to accumulate important ballistic resources; such a state would never have the chance to use them. However, the analysts from Indonesia, Malaysia and Pakistan claim that this shield would make China arm with ballistic resources in order to gain credibility as a nuclear power; in their opinion, the Chinese will always try to have a larger amount of rockets than the one which can be annihilated by the shield. They would also stimulate India amd Pakistan to improve and enlarge their arsenal. A second American argument does not concern the de