 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Q & A©Associated Press © St. Petersburg Times, published May 2, 2001 WASHINGTON -- President Bush has explained why he believes the United States urgently needs to build missile defenses, but he has left open questions about how, when and at what cost. Here are some questions and answers to explain the pieces of missile defense that Bush is likely to pursue, as well as the evolution of such defenses since the Reagan administration. Q: Is the Bush plan like Reagan's? A: The president has not yet committed himself to specifics, but some believe that weapons like space-based lasers, or missile interceptors launched from satellites, are important elements of an effective missile defense. Over the next decade or so, however, the emphasis likely would be on missile interceptors or lasers based on land, aboard ships or aboard aircraft. Q: Will a system like that work? A: Many who have worked on missile defense are convinced it can work, but the issue at the moment is nailing down what "work" means. As Bush said in his speech Tuesday at the National Defense University, no known system can be guaranteed 100 percent effective, certainly not today. His defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, argues that a missile defense can contribute to U.S. and global security if its mere existence deters potential aggressors from launching an attack. Others argue that imperfect defense could encourage hostile nations to improve their offenses. Q: How much will a system cost? A: Bush said he has not yet decided on specifics, so the cost is unknown. The less extensive missile defense system pursued during the Clinton administration had an estimated cost of between $30-billion and $60-billion, and some think Bush's broader approach could carry a price tag of $200-billion or more. The current budget for missile defense is $4.7-billion and that is likely to grow next year. Over the past 20 years the United States has spent more than $100-billion on missile defense projects. Q: Hasn't missile defense been tried -- and failed? A: The history of U.S. missile defense efforts date to the immediate aftermath of World War II. A limited defense was deployed briefly during the 1970s to protect missile silos in North Dakota, but the United States has never built a nationwide, let alone a global, missile defense. On March 23, 1983, then-President Reagan gave a speech in which he announced his Strategic Defense Initiative with a pledge to make nuclear missiles obsolete. When Bush's father became president in 1989 he scaled back Reagan's SDI to a more modest system he called Global Protection Against Limited Strikes, or GPALS (gee-pals). Shortly after President Clinton took office in 1993 he scrapped that approach, reduced the budget for missile defense and focused more of the effort on defending against short-range missiles that threaten U.S. troops in the field. Q: How soon could Bush build a missile defense? A: Some in his administration hope they can deploy at least a minimal system by 2004, the final year of Bush's term. In his speech Tuesday, Bush said an anti-missile weapon aboard a ship or aircraft might provide a "limited but effective" defense that could be expanded and strengthened later. This might, for example, be a laser mounted on a Boeing 747 that could zap a hostile missile as it rises through the clouds in the early phase of its flight. The Air Force is working on such a system, which it calls the airborne laser, and some believe Bush will give it an infusion of money. Q: What's wrong with putting up a less-than-perfect missile defense? A: Some say it would amount to a dangerous bluff, and that if a hostile nation chose to challenge such a defense, any failure -- even one missile that made it through -- would be catastrophic. Some fear the Bush administration is planning a "scarecrow" approach: erecting an ineffective defense in hopes that its mere existence will dissuade potential aggressors from challenging it.
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
From the Times wire desk
From the AP |
