Sidereum spolium

President Bush's announcement last month that the United States will deploy ballistic missile defenses (BMD) is compelling proof that really bad ideas never die -- they simply lie dormant until the next Republican administration.

Though the president offered few specifics, we did learn that his BMD would be a "layered defense," meaning that multiple weapons systems will be deployed against ballistic missiles in their boost, mid-course and descent phases, and that it is justified as protection against "limited threats," meaning that it is intended to destroy at best one or two ballistic missiles.

BMD remains a bad idea for the same reason it was a bad idea when Ronald Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative: Existing technologies will not support an effective and reliable missile defense.

The daunting technical problem of destroying a large number of ballistic missiles with other missiles, which has been characterized as trying to "shoot bullets with bullets," remains unsolved. A country determined to preserve its nuclear deterrent will deploy comparatively inexpensive countermeasures to foil comparatively expensive BMD weapon systems, and will deploy a larger number of ballistic missiles confident that a few will pierce even the best missile defense.

What BMD proponents ignore is that military advantage still lies with offense rather than defense, because a single ballistic missile carrying a single nuclear warhead can destroy an entire urban area.

BMD cannot free urban populations from being held hostage to nuclear deterrence. If anything, BMD may jeopardize the precarious safety of nuclear deterrence by making the nuclear weapons of other countries less credible though no less deadly in reality. That is why U.S. allies in Europe and Japan are alarmed by the Bush decision, which effectively junks the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.

BMD is also a bad idea for a new reason: It will stimulate horizontal nuclear proliferation as more countries deploy nuclear weapons on ballistic missiles for the first time. China is likely to respond with more ballistic missiles, starting a chain-reaction of Indian, Pakistani and Iranian ballistic missile deployments. In turn, many non-nuclear nations will accelerate their nuclear weapons and missile programs. BMD, in sum, makes the planet a lot more dangerous.

So if BMD is such a bad idea, what explains the Bush administration's rush to deploy?

First, waiting to find out which, if any, BMD weapons systems actually work might spark old-fashioned inter-service rivalry. The four military services can be fierce bureaucratic warriors in their struggle for turf and government spending, and each service is guaranteed a piece of the action in a preemptive deployment of a layered defense.

The biggest prize -- the Ground Based Interceptor (GBI) at the center of National Missile Defense -- goes to the Army, along with the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and the enhanced Patriot missile or PAC-3 for lower altitude defense.

Not to be outshone, the Air Force gets the more exotic Airborne Chemical Laser (ABL) and, eventually, a Space-Based Laser. The Navy gets the Navy Area Defense, an enhanced AEGIS missile system for lower altitude defense. Even the Marine Corps may get the Improved Lethality Missile, an enhanced Hawk missile. Prospects for BMD deployment by the Coast Guard still appear poor.

Second, preemptive deployment of a layered defense represents not only a much more expensive BMD, but also multiple opportunities to hand out contracts to the major U.S. aerospace companies.

Boeing is the prime contractor for the GBI, with Lockheed Martin serving as subcontractor for its payload launch vehicle (what real people call a rocket) and Raytheon subcontracting the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (essentially a high-velocity ram). Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor for the THAAD and AEGIS systems. Boeing, TRW and Lockheed Martin will get the contracts for the ABL, which will be mounted on a Boeing 747.

Finally, preemptive deployment makes sense if Bush's advisors believe his is a one-term presidency and the Republicans might lose control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2002 elections. Sen. Jim Jeffords' recent defection from the GOP has shaken their confidence and reduced their ability to dictate legislation. They know Bush has less legitimacy than any modern president, and that his conservative policies will alienate even larger segments of the electorate.

All this adds up to a very narrow window of opportunity to impose conservative policy and break open the pork barrel before the American public realizes what the rest of the planet already knows.

John Hickman is a professor of government and public policy at Berry College.