Moreover, Mr. George Bush Jr., a prominent presidential hopeful, already announced that if Russia does not agree to revise ABM, the US would just drop the treaty. Heated controversy over NMD in the US boils down to 'feasibility of the program'. Those who are against it argue that it would be a waste of budget to re-invest in the failure of Reagan's gigantic investment. Those who are for the scheme say that the project should be implemented at all costs. Problem here is that both parties basically agree that they would all opt for NMD if it is technically 'feasible'.
Japan is more worrisome.
It is overly sensitive to North Korea's missile threat, and there is almost no domestic protest against the government's militarism. Technically speaking, even if North Korea soon develops a missile that could reach the US, it will still not be a substantial threat, because importance lies not in size of a range, but in missile warhead and its accuracy. Technically, chances of North Korea developing an ICBM loaded with nuclear warhead or biochemical weapon and targeting it to a US city is zero to none. Moreover, in political perspective, a scenario where North Korea takes a pre-emptive attack against the US or Japan is totally unrealistic. The US and Japan, which have already strengthened their military alliance through 'new guidelines', may suffer from damages.