WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congress has put the Pentagon on a crash course to building a multibillion-dollar defense against missile attacks on the United States.
But will the system work?Even the Pentagon, which has spent about $50 billion on missile-defense work over the past three decades, admits it cannot yet say. After six more years and an additional $10 billion, it hopes to be able to answer yes.
To understand the uncertainty facing this suddenly popular project, which the Pentagon calls National Missile Defense, consider that the high-tech rocket that would shoot down an incoming missile has not been tested. The first test is due this summer and the final one not until 2003.
The missile interceptor is "the least mature element" of the defensive system, Air Force Lt. Gen. Lester Lyles, director of the Pentagon office coordinating the project, told Congress in February.
If the tests prove successful, the Pentagon intends to build 61 of these anti-missile missiles, he said. They would be placed at ground stations in either Alaska or North Dakota, possibly both.
The Senate voted 97-3 last week for a bill that declares the United States will build a missile defense "as soon as technologically possible." It set no target date.
On Thursday, the House passed a similar bill that said: "It is the official policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense."
The Pentagon's timetable envisions an initial missile defense system ready for use by 2005. Defense Secretary William Cohen told Congress on March 2 that the target date -- pushed back this year from 2003 -- still carries a "high risk" of failure.
That means the current $10 billion estimate for making the system ready for use in six years may be too low by billions.
Cohen said that in June 2000, the Pentagon will review the progress and decide whether the time is right to commit to the system. Many private analysts believe Cohen will conclude that it is too early to decide.
The initial system could defend all 50 states but only against a handful of long-range ballistic missiles fired from a potential enemy with a poorly developed missile force, such as North Korea.
It would have only "residual capabilities" against missiles fired by an established nuclear power like Russia or China, Lyles said. The established powers' missiles have more sophisticated means of overcoming a defense.
David Wright, an analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, disputes the Pentagon's claim that its planned missile defense would work against the most rudimentary long-range missiles.
"I don't believe it," Wright said in an interview.
He contends a country like North Korea that has invested enough to build an intercontinental ballistic missile would spend what it needed for effective "countermeasures," decoys and other onboard devices to fool an American anti-missile system.