Star Wars redux

The nuclear shield is back -- with bipartisan support

By Bruce Kennedy
CNN Interactive

The measure that came before the U.S. House of Representatives in early 1999 sums up the idea in 15 words:

"It is the official policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense."

The House approved that bill one day after the U.S. Senate passed its version -- which stresses that any such missile defense system be deployed "as soon as technologically possible" and have its funding reviewed each year by Congress.

U.S. lawmakers now must consider how to mobilize a concept that first appeared in 1983 -- when then-President Ronald Reagan announced his Strategic Defense Initiative, a much more ambitious and expensive space-based, missile defense program that came to be known as "Star Wars."

At the time, the Reagan administration stressed that SDI was a defensive system. But it was widely understood that any such defense would be against Soviet missiles. SDI brought cries of alarm from both the Soviet bloc and many of Washington's Western allies. "Star Wars," its critics said, would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Moreover, it would destroy the delicate nuclear deterrent that had shaped Cold War policy for decades.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and a change of U.S. presidents at the end of the 1980s reduced SDI's impact. Its budget was sharply cut, and many of its research and development programs were abandoned or significantly reduced. Since 1983, the Pentagon has spent more than $50 billion on SDI and similar programs. President Clinton, meanwhile, has pledged $10.5 billion over the next five years toward the new national missile defense program.

The Cold War may be over, but supporters of the new missile defense program contend that new threats from so-called "rogue nations" make a defensive shield a necessity. The House overwhelmingly approved the measure after a closed briefing by Donald Rumsfeld, a former U.S. defense secretary, who said that up to 30 nations now have or are working to acquire ballistic missile technology -- including Iran and North Korea. The vote also came just days after allegations surfaced that China had covertly obtained nuclear secrets from the United States.

Despite bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, critics say an anti-missile defense, even a limited one as envisioned now, is unrealistic.

"It won't work," says John Pike, director of space policy at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington. Pike says the missile defense test record remains "dismal," with only two of 15 attempts to intercept a long-range target during the past two decades being successful.

"Despite decades of effort and tens of billions of dollars, this goal (of a national missile defense) remains elusive," Pike says.

Politically, there appears to be a strong motive for all sides of Congress to push forward a national missile defense. The concept has long been a priority of the Republican Party -- and was part of its 1994 "Contract With America." Observers say one reason President Clinton and the Democrats have embraced the program is to make certain it doesn't become a campaign issue.

Still, there is some dissent within the Democratic Party. Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio says the program "threatens years of progress in nuclear arms reduction agreements. A renewed arms race would threaten our national security far more than the perceived threat from rogue states."

Similar thoughts are being voiced outside the United States -- echoing the dismay heard after the 1983 "Star Wars" announcement. Following the House vote, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying a U.S. national missile defense program "poses a serious threat to the whole process of nuclear arms control, as well as strategic stability, for which major international agreements have been worked out for decades."

And in Beijing, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman criticized the U.S. program as a counterproductive measure that will "have an impact on global strategic balance."

But Porter Goss, a Republican congressman from Florida and chairman of the House intelligence committee, says America cannot do without a national missile defense.

The 15-word-long House bill, he said, "speaks volumes to the entire planet that we will not shy away from the challenge to make the United States and its people safe from ballistic missile attack. The threat is real. It is growing and more immediate than many have thought."

John Pike has another view:

"The best that you can say is that it will waste a lot of money -- the worst is that it might give a president a false sense of security and plunge us into a nuclear war [that] the system will not defend us against."

For the moment, the anti-missile program's future is uncertain. White House officials are saying the system will be about 20 percent more expensive than previously thought.

Meanwhile, a report issued by an independent panel states the system is suffering from shortages of parts, inadequate testing procedures and lapses on the part of management. The program's deployment date has been pushed back, from 2003 to 2005.