NARRATOR: The year is 2001. Saddam Hussein's forces are on the move, threatening his neighbors again. Armed with ballistic missiles carrying chemical or biological weapons that could strike U.S. forces and allies in the Persian Gulf, Iraq tells the United States to mind its own business or else.

Seeing the U.S. distracted, North Korea attempts to reunify the Korean Peninsula by force. The North Korean army possesses chemical -- and possibly nuclear-tipped missiles.

These are two nightmare scenarios the U.S. Government wants us to believe are very possible. Should we be afraid? How is the Pentagon addressing these threats? Will their strategies work as currently envisioned?

REAR ADM EUGENE CARROLL (USN, Ret.): Welcome to "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR." I'm Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll.

Seven years after the end of the Cold War, the threat of an attack against U.S. territory has greatly diminished. But some argue that America still needs a National Missile Defense capability to address new threats. Today's program will help you decide whether the threats dictate the need for a missile defense system.

NARRATOR: Ballistic missile defense supporters, including many in Congress, cite the proliferation of missile technology as a top threat to our security. One example of this is the spread of SCUD missile technology to Iraq and other countries.

Rep. CURT WELDON (R-PA): The largest loss of life of our troops in the last ten years was from a low-complexity SCUD missile that landed in that barracks in Dhahran. That should never have occurred. It happened because...

NARRATOR: Curt Weldon is a Republican congressman from Pennsylvania and an articulate supporter of ballistic missile defenses. He sees the missile threat emerging rapidly, particularly in Iran.

Rep. WELDON: There are now over 70 nations that have cruise missiles or more advanced medium-range missile capabilities. Over 20 nations, in fact, are in production modes in terms of these missiles, and the technology is increasing astronomically. Countries are getting technology from those nations who have more sophisticated systems. And with the lack of stability in Russia, unfortunately, a lot of technology is coming out of that nation.

NARRATOR: Congressman Weldon is concerned about the transfer of missile technology from Russia to Iran. He believes that could give Teheran the ability to attack American troops in the Gulf and allies such as Israel.

Rep. WELDON: That transfer alone, we think, will give Iran a capability of a medium-range missile within 12 to 18 months. That means, in the short term, we're going to have medium-range threats to our allies and to our troops that we have to be able to deal with.

NARRATOR: Although the U.S. Congress and Clinton administration disagree on the size and scope of the ballistic missile threat, both have treated this issue as a top priority.

John Holum, director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, is one of President Clinton's top advisers for arms control and proliferation issues.

Secretary JOHN D. HOLUM: Proliferation of ballistic missiles is of very great concern. At least 15 countries have the potential to deploy at least short-range ballistic missiles. A number of those could put weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, or nuclear, or biological weapons -- on those missiles. It poses a very great danger to our troops abroad and to our friends, including a few with our strategy in places like Iraq.

We saw in the Gulf War in 1991 that the Iraqis deployed a relatively primitive SCUD missile that they'd acquired through North Korea. And those missiles, fairly primitive, are quite widely spread throughout the Middle East and other countries. But more recently, North Korea and some of the other suppliers, and some of the proliferant countries, countries who want to acquire these capabilities, have been developing more advanced, more sophisticated guidance and propulsion systems so they can build better missiles.

NARRATOR: Few people dispute where the "perceived" threat is coming from. Jonathan Landay, a reporter with the Christian Science Monitor, follows defense issues closely.

JONATHAN LANDAY: We're really only concerned with the ones that we consider the bad apples, the threats to, quote-unquote, "U.S. and allied interests," and those you can count on one hand -- Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria.

Secretary HOLUM: Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Those are the principal countries that are developing or have ballistic missiles that could threaten our friends or our allies.

NARRATOR: However, independent observers say that while missile proliferation is a concern, there is no immediate threat.

Aaron Karp is a respected defense expert and adjunct professor at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia.

AARON KARP: The trends for the United States are very good at the moment and they have been for a long time. We get very caught up in things like the Gulf War and Saddam Hussein's missile programs, and rightly so, but since the Gulf War, the trend has definitely been down. Fewer countries are interested, fewer countries are spending the money, and the programs we used to worry about, most of them, are making much slower progress, if any at all .

NARRATOR: Theater missiles, like Saddam Hussein's short-range SCUDs, however, remain a threat because they are easy to build and are readily available on the international arms market.

Professor KARP: What we really have to worry about are short-range systems, especially in the Middle East.

Mr. LANDAY: The greatest threat involves theater missiles: That is, missiles that can be used against United States' forces or coalition forces. Those are generally within the range of up to say 350, 400 kilometers.

NARRATOR: The Irans, Iraqs and North Koreas of the world, however, have not been able to build or acquire ballistic missiles with ranges sufficient to threaten U.S. territory.

Professor KARP: There's nothing foreseeable that's going to threaten the continental United States.

Mr. LANDAY: No other country besides those that already have intercontinental ballistic missiles are going to develop them before the next 15 years.

NARRATOR: While so-called "rogue" states have scientists capable of understanding the basic science behind developing ballistic missiles, actually producing the systems is technically challenging.

Tim McCarthy, a missile analyst at the Monterey Institute of International Studies and deputy chief inspector for the United Nations Special Commission in Iraq, explains:

TIM McCARTHY: And generally what you see in that problem with people are countries that -- Iraq, for instance -- that have very good engineering talent, senior engineers trained in the best universities in the West and in the East. They can design a system, but then they need someone to actually build it on the shop floor, and this is where you have problems. That is, the technicians, the machinists, the welders, those who can actually cut metal.

NARRATOR: To guard against the proliferation threat, the Clinton administration is developing missiles defenses while continuing preventative diplomatic efforts.

John Holum outlines the government's current strategy.

Secretary HOLUM: We need to do everything we can to prevent it through arms control. We need to do everything we can to deter it by making clear that any country that attacks us or our forces with missiles, especially with weapons of mass destruction, will suffer an overwhelming retaliatory blow. And then we need to build defenses.

NARRATOR: Aaron Karp thinks the U.S. Government has taken sufficient preparations.

Professor KARP: Dealing with proliferation now is about as high on the agenda as anything can be. We have an amazing gamut of programs.

NARRATOR: Congressional critics, however, are not satisfied with the pace and scope of the Clinton administration's missile defense efforts.

Rep. WELDON: These systems will be great systems, but we're not going to have them ready to actually deploy, at the earliest, for three to four years from now. And that's outrageous given the possibility of Iran having a system within a year to two years that we will have to defend against, yet we will have no system to deal with that threat.

NARRATOR: Ballistic missile defense is split into two elements: national missile defense designed to protect U.S. territory against long-range ballistic missiles, and theater missile defense, or TMD, designed to protect American troops and allies in foreign military theaters such as the Persian Gulf.

Narrator of video:

"Theater missile defense is made up of individual elements, such as ground-based radars, non-nuclear interceptors, and a command and control network. These individual elements will work together to detect the launch of ballistic missiles and track and intercept warheads.

"Theater missile defenses will be used by the United States Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines and would be integrated with other defense systems deployed by our friends and allies."

NARRATOR: Before the U.S. can consider purchasing and deploying theater missile defenses, the technology has to be mastered. LGEN Lester Lyles, the head of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, explains:

LGEN LESTER LYLES (congressional testimony):

"The TMD systems that we have today are technically challenging in that they require a substantial amount of engineering development and integration work. And finally, they certainly require proof on the test range, proof that we can reliably hit and reliably kill incoming ballistic missiles and their warheads.

"And while I am confident that these systems will succeed, we have to prove it before we're ready to start fielding them."

Narrator of video:

"The most effective theater missile defense requires two tiers of interceptors, a lower tier and an upper tier, either of which can be based on land or at sea. An upper tier engages missiles at long range and high altitude and provides protection for a large area. Upper tier defenses are particularly important for intercepting missiles armed with nuclear, chemical or biological warheads because they intercept warheads further away from their intended targets, thereby minimizing debris and damage."

Mr. LANDAY: It's got to be said that there's a lot of question out there about whether or not some of these systems are indeed going to work. They've had enormous amounts of problems with some of these systems.

NARRATOR: Despite the lack of proven technology on the test range, ballistic missile defense supporters want to deploy theater missile defenses now and move quickly to build national missile defenses. The Republican Congress included such a proposal in their Defend America Act, first introduced in Marc 1996.

Mr. LANDAY: The Congress takes a very dim view of what the administration has been doing. It doesn't believe it's strong enough.

Rep. WELDON: No member of Congress today trivializes the issue. In fact, the biggest difference between the Congress and the White House on defense issues is in missile defense.

NARRATOR: The Pentagon and the Clinton administration see danger in rushing missile defenses to the field.

LGEN LYLES (testimony):

"Mr. Chairman, I feel that our core programs are progressive and proceeding as fast as they possibly can, given the technical and fiscal constraints that we've imposed upon them. As the committee and DoD consider appropriate responses to this Iranian missile defense system, we must carefully evaluate the options and not just try to accelerate these programs until we fully understand that they can meet their demonstrated capabilities."

Secretary HOLUM: I also think it's a mistake to rush ahead with active defenses of the national territory, for example, before the threat is likely to emerge. In large part, because if we rush to deploy a system too soon, we may forego technologies that will emerge during the course of further work on these programs.

NARRATOR: As John Holum notes, the Clinton administration supports continuing the development of missile defense technologies while waiting to deploy these weapon systems until there is a valid threat and the technology is ready.

Secretary HOLUM: So, we should, as our program plays out, take the time -- be ready to deploy within three years of a decision to do that, but also take the time to let technology continue to expand and accrue, so that we deploy the best possible defense against the threat when we see it emerging. Nobody is contending that we are within three years now of a missile threat that can strike the continental United States; nobody has concluded that.

Professor KARP: There's no danger to attacks directly on American territory, even the most extreme parts of the Aleutian Islands or the extremities of Hawaii, for the next 15 years at least. We've got a lot of time to try other responses and to wait and see how the threats emerge.

NARRATOR: Independent observers, such as Jonathan Landay, note that building and fielding national missile defenses would have severe political and financial costs. Of particular concern is the possible abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, or ABM. Abrogating the ABM could cause the worsening of already frayed U.S.-Russian relations that could strengthen ultra-nationalist forces in Moscow.

Rep. WELDON: It's not a case where I think arms control agreements are ineffective; I think they do play an effective role. In fact, I was one Republican member who was going to oppose an effort on the floor of the House to force the president to abrogate the ABM Treaty.

Mr. LANDAY: And that would cause, at least in the administration's view and the view of other experts, a serious problem with the Russians. And so, this debate goes on. It's become politicized...

NARRATOR: There is considerable doubt whether the American public is willing to encourage to incur huge costs for missile defenses.

Mr. LANDAY: I don't think an issue like missile defenses is really a major priority with a lot of Americans. I think they feel secure. I think they'd like to see defense spending brought down even further.

Secretary HOLUM: At the same time, I think we've seen that if we start to talk about fifty or $60 billion national missile defense programs that are premature, there'd be public resistance to that. So, I think the public takes a pretty sensible approach to these issues and wants to make sure there's a danger that is real before we commit vast amounts of resources.

Mr. LANDAY: There's an old saying, and that is what's most important to Americans is death and taxes. When you don't have the threat of a Soviet Union hanging over your life every day and you're reminded of it every day in the newspapers, then I think that Americans' attention has been drawn primarily to domestic concerns and the thought of nuclear annihilation, the thought of the United States being subject to a missile threat I don't think is a very high issue in the minds of most Americans.

NARRATOR: Even if the United States were to build and deploy the most sophisticated missile defense system possible, it would not provide an iron-clad guarantee against attack. According to Jonathan Landay, states that wish to get around military obstacles will ultimately be successful if they have the political will to o so.

Mr. LANDAY: My thought would be that whenever there's been any kind of obstacle put in the way of the development of a military system, people who want that system are going to find ways around it.

NARRATOR: Landay notes that one way proliferators could circumvent American ballistic missile defenses is to develop cruise missiles.

Mr. LANDAY: These are low-flying weapons. They're very fast and they're hard to see because they're so fast and also because it's easier to build stealth technologies into them. I think that it's a question, in terms of looking at the programs that are now developing theater ballistic missiles defenses, as to whether or not they're going to be able to handle cruise missiles.

NARRATOR: More likely still is the possibility that instead of spending large sums of money on trying to build complicated missiles, America's enemies could conduct a terrorist attack using chemical or biological weapons.

Rep. WELDON: The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction could come in, I mean through a terrorist, could come in secretly. That's a threat. And we've got to have a two-pronged approach that keeps an equal focus on both.

Secretary HOLUM: We need to keep in mind that there are threats of weapons of mass destruction other than missile-borne threats. There could be airborne threats. There could be a chemical weapon or a nuclear weapon carried in a suitcase, which of course a missile defense wouldn't defend against. So, we need a whole range of defenses. But I think the programs that are underway are sufficient to deal with what is likely to emerge.

NARRATOR: All sides of the debate seem to agree that diplomatic efforts, such as convincing supplier states not to sell missile technology, is an important and necessary component.

Rep. WELDON: The diplomatic efforts are important and should never be diminished, but they are only part of a solution. And diplomatic efforts need to be coordinated with arms control agreements.

Secretary HOLUM: We've been fairly successful in building an international regime to limit the flow of missile-related technologies. Twenty-nine countries belong to the Missile Technology Control Regime, including now Russia.

NARRATOR: The Missile Technology Control Regime is a voluntary organization of supplier countries with advanced missile technologies who've agreed to impose very strict controls on the export of missile technology to countries of concern.

Secretary HOLUM: The president, the secretary of state, the entire administration have placed a lot of effort and a lot of prestige and authority behind our efforts. For example, to dissuade the Russians from cooperating by providing missile technology to Iran, I think that we've made considerable progress in those negotiations.

NBC Anchor TOM BROKAW (news broadcast):

"Tonight, Condor II, a secret missile being built by Argentina and Egypt using secret technology stolen from the United States..."

NARRATOR: Tim McCarthy agrees that diplomacy has helped convince several countries to halt or curtail their ballistic missile programs.

Mr. McCARTHY: In Argentina, for instance, is a great case where the Condor missile program was essentially dismantled based on U.S. pressure, diplomatic pressure, and some pressure from allied governments, primarily the United States.

NARRATOR: Despite these efforts, congressional critics contend that diplomacy and arms control agreements have failed to adequately address the problem.

Rep. WELDON: When I look at this administration's track record, since 1993, we've had seven violations of the Missile Technology Control Regime, which is supposed to limit the transfer of technology from Russia to other countries.

Mr. LANDAY: They would like to see tougher action. They would like to see the use of sanctions used a lot more than the administration has been prepared to use them. And so again, like most of the other portions of this issue, this particular part -- what do you do in terms of non-proliferation policy -- has become highly politicized also.

Rep. WELDON: Treaties are one part, as long as they're enforced. And my contention is the track record of this administration on enforcement of arms control agreements is, at best, abysmal.

NARRATOR: Independent security experts, however, note that diplomacy and arms control measures, including those undertaken by the Clinton administration, have greatly reduced the danger of missile proliferation.

Professor KARP: What has become much harder now is for countries to develop their own ballistic missiles. Controls like the Missile Technology Control Regime are pretty effective. It's very difficult for a country to make a decision that they're going to go out and develop long-range ballistic missiles by themselves. They can't do that anymore; they have to get help.

Mr. LANDAY: There's an agreement I think among most people that it has, indeed, slowed the proliferation of ballistic missiles and we've had a couple of cases where pressure from the United States has resulted in several countries -- Argentina, for example, the other, South Africa -- abandoning ballistic missile programs and joining the MTCR.

NARRATOR: There is also agreement that cooperative approaches to diplomacy have large payoffs over the long term.

Secretary HOLUM: So, the diplomatic side, I think, is getting a lot of attention, as rightly it should, because prevention is a lot cheaper than defense or deterrents.

Rep. WELDON: We have to pursue a joint approach of enforcing arms control agreements and also having systems that can help us protect in the eventuality of one of these nations using it against our friends or our troops.

NARRATOR: The Cooperative Threat Reduction Program that helps Russia dismantle its nuclear weapons under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties has been one example of the cooperative security arrangements pursued by the Clinton administration. Also known as Nunn-Lugar, this program has been highly successful.

Gathering the political will and resources to conduct cooperative diplomacy, however, has been difficult.

Professor KARP: There's a major problem in diplomacy in the Clinton administration, which has shown itself to be very skilled at dealing with specific crises, but the tendency is to wait for crises. The Clinton administration puts out fires, as it were. Strategic thinking has never been its great strength.

Instead of strategy, what you tend to have is the personal interest of high-level officials. So, every now and then, the United States gets heavily involved in something because there's someone who cares a lot about it.

At the moment, there's no one in the U.S. Government who cares a lot about Iran. There's no one in the U.S. Government who cares a lot about South Asia, for example. And thus, our diplomacy tends to be weak.

Secretary HOLUM: If we're going to be effective, we need to have pretty much global coverage with our diplomacy. And we have been a bit constrained by the budget cuts in the recent past.

NARRATOR: The State Department, which is the government agency in charge of conducting diplomacy overseas, has had its budget slashed in recent years, making conduct of cooperative diplomacy difficult.

Secretary HOLUM: So, we are operating frugally. I think, however, that within the context of that budget, the secretary and the president have placed a very high priority on prevention, preventative diplomacy through arms control.

NARRATOR: Without strong political and financial support for cooperative arrangements that will reduce the desire to possess ballistic missiles, missile technology will continue to spread. How quickly it spreads and how effective active defenses will be remains controversial.

Rep. WELDON: What we need to do is to maintain a level of consistent funding, coupled with diplomatic efforts, coupled with arms control agreements. That's the way we achieve and maintain world peace. And that hasn't been the track record of this administration.

Mr. LANDAY: People are always going to look for a way around obstacles, diplomatic or technological, if there's a system that they want to develop. And so, I don't know that even developing the best theater missile defense or the best diplomatic measures are going to take care of the ballistic missile problem.

Professor KARP: At the moment, the issue is pretty minor. I like the way one journalist put it when they said that "missile proliferation was a sideshow of a sideshow of a sideshow."

ADM CARROLL: You have heard competing views about the threat of a missile attack and the need for a national missile defense system. Overall, it seems that the proponents of missile defense are advocating a costly, risky technological solution to a political problem. Furthermore, defenses against an improbable ballistic missile attack against the United States provide absolutely no protection against more likely forms of attack, including cruise missiles and terrorist action.

The most promising defense against all forms of danger lies in comprehensive non-proliferation measures through cooperative security arrangements. Reducing threats offers far more security at less cost than does the risky pursuit of dubious defenses against missile attack.

For "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR," I'm Eugene Carroll.

[Over credits]

LGEN LYLES (congressional testimony):

"When I first went to Probymarsk in March of '94, that site at Probymarsk had 700 nuclear warheads all aimed at targets in the United States. When this task if completed, that missile field will have been entirely converted to a wheat field. That is the product -- the Nunn-Lugar program, that is the product of this Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, and that is the sort of thing you are buying with the $327 million invested in this Cooperative Threat Reduction Program."