If it were a matter of the national pastime instead of national security, the concept of a missile defense system would be heading for the showers right now, having swung and missed three times in a row. But after the failure Saturday of an anti-missile interceptor to destroy its test target, a hasty decision either way is unwise. As it stands, the debate features unpersuasive arguments on both sides.
Critics brush off the dangers posed by neonuclear states.
In this nation, opponents argue the system is too expensive, too easily defeated and not required. The retaliatory power of the U.S. arsenal will deter rogue attacks, as it deterred Saddam Hussein from using chemical weapons in the Gulf War, say such critics as John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists. There's no need to rush, anyway. The administration had hoped to decide by late summer so construction could start next spring. Under that timetable, the system could be finished by 2005, when North Korea is expected to have a missile able to hit U.S. territory.