WASHINGTON - It is the most expensive yet least-publicized spending program proposed in this presidential campaign. It is Bob Dole's plan to build a US missile defense system that some are calling "Star Wars - Part II."
The program, based on one President Ronald Reagan envisioned and estimated to cost up to $61 billion, is needed in case the Chinese ``rain down missiles on Los Angeles,'' Dole said recently.
Dole hasn't publicized the contentious proposal because President Clinton has sought to co-opt the issue by pushing his own $10 billion missile-defense plan. In fact, one of the biggest differences between Clinton and Dole's proposed defense budgets for the next five years is what they would spend on missile defense systems.
The result is that no matter who is elected, a huge increase in Star Wars spending is likely - which may be a surprise to voters who thought the need for a missile defense program faded with the breakup of the former Soviet Union.
``This is much more likely to go through now because Clinton wanted to make sure Dole didn't have a campaign issue, even though the threat from missiles is gone'' from the former Soviet Union, said John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists, a private group. ``I'm certain that this is not publicly realized.''
Clinton and Dole cite the new nuclear threats of accidental or terrorist attack - and both call for defenses capable of intercepting and destroying a dozen or so incoming missiles, not the hundreds expected in a mass superpower attack. But even a scaled-down system would have to be enormous to protect all 50 states from a few missiles coming from any direction.
Dole's proposal is expensive because he wants the system deployed by 2003. Clinton calls for three more years of research, with the option of building the program in another three years if the threat of attack is deemed real and the technology is plausible. Reform Party candidate Ross Perot has in the past backed deployment of a Star Wars-type system, but his campaign did not respond to questions.
To be sure, Clinton and Dole have other differences on defense. Dole, for example, favors development of B-2 bombers, opposes the use of US troops in circumstances such as the intervention in Haiti and says he will emphasize different defense priorities. But take away Star Wars, and Clinton and Dole are surprisingly close on defense spending. Clinton's five-year defense budget calls for $1.61 trillion, compared to Dole's $1.63 trillion.
How did the Star Wars sequel get this far?
From a political standpoint, the reason is clear: Missile threats can be effective political weapons, such as John F. Kennedy's 1960 charge of a ``missile gap.'' In addition, missile defense is highly popular among defense contractors and workers, prompting some observers to say that both candidates adopted the plan to woo votes in key defense areas such as California. The program also could be a bonanza for Massachusetts-based Raytheon Corp., which has been a leader in developing missile-defense technology.
It was during the Cold War that Reagan proposed a system of space-based satellites capable of shooting down incoming missiles. Despite billions spent on research, the program never produced a usable system and seemed in danger of extinction until the Republicans' 1994 Contract with America called for a major expansion. But Clinton vetoed a 1995 bill that would have expanded it greatly.
Earlier this year, Dole picked up on the issue and made it the centerpiece of the ``Defend America'' legislation he proposed in the Senate. Dole excoriated Clinton for failing to act, saying that though the United States has no way to stop incoming missiles, ``we have witnessed a complete denial from the highest levels of the administration that there is even a threat to the United States.''
Dole's proposal calls for a system of missile ``interceptors'' - or antimissile rockets - to be deployed by the year 2003. While Dole says his program is different from the Star Wars scheme of space-based missiles, his legislation calls for ``space-based kinetic energy interceptors'' and ``space-based energy systems'' - the kind of laser technology at the heart of Reagan's program.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that Dole's proposal would cost up to $61 billion, plus billions of dollars in annual maintenance that could bring the total to $110 billion. The CBO made its estimate on the assumption that the plan would have 100 ground-based interceptors, 500 space-based interceptors and 24 satellites.
House Republicans balked at the price. Dole said the CBO estimate was wrong because it made too many assumptions about the system. Dole promised his defense secretary would come up with a cost-effective plan once he becomes president.
Already under pressure to explain how he can cut taxes and balance the budget, candidate Dole has left the missile-defense plan out of his spending projections altogether. Asked earlier this year how much the program would cost, Dole said, ``We'll have to look at that. I don't have a fixed number in mind. ... I'll leave that up to the experts.''
As for Clinton, his interest in intercepting incoming missiles has grown dramatically since Dole unveiled his plan. In his 1992 campaign manifesto, ``Putting People First,'' Clinton supported research on a ``limited missile defense system,'' but wrote, ``Deployment of a massive space-based defense ... is not necessary.'' The Clinton administration said Dole's plan ``embraces much of the failed Star Wars scheme,'' and Clinton recently called it ``the wrong way to defend America.''
But to avoid charges that he is weak on defense, Clinton reconsidered deployment. He backed a plan calling for three more years of missile-defense research, with the option of building a system three years later. The system probably would include 100 ground-based antimissile interceptors.
Clinton has said the threat is not so imminent that the United States needs to commit to building a system within six years. Clinton has cited an intelligence report that says a rogue state is not likely to obtain the capability to launch an attack on the United States until the year 2011.
But that intelligence study has an unlikely critic - James Woolsey, Clinton's former CIA director. In an interview, Woolsey said he supported the Dole bill because he believes the threat of a terrorist or rogue attack could come much sooner. Woolsey stopped short of saying the intelligence report had been prepared to bolster the president's position, but he speculated it had what he called a faulty conclusion because it was based on incorrect questions.
``A rogue state strapping a bunch of smaller boosters together could quite readily carry a biological warhead to much greater range and do it much sooner than if they were waiting to design a traditional American-style intercontinental ballistic missile,'' Woolsey said, asserting that the intelligence report did not take such a nontraditional missile into account.
Robert Bell, the senior National Security Council official at the White House who deals with missile defense, denied the report had purposely played down the threat to justify putting off development of an antimissile program.
``The report was not dictated by the White House,'' Bell said in an interview. ``The first time I saw it was when it arrived in my in box.''
In any case, Bell stressed that Clinton was hedging his bets by backing a program that could result in deployment by the year 2003, the same time frame Dole is proposing. But Bell said the president's plan was superior because it has much more flexibility and does not rely on space-based solutions.
Stephen Schwartz, a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution who has analyzed the programs, said he supports the research project but thinks deploying a Star Wars-style system is unrealistic. Not only are there questions about whether the plan would work, Schwartz said, but also neither the Dole program nor the Clinton one has any way of dealing with the more likely threat of a nuclear terrorist threat coming from a truck, ship or cruise missile.
``You can't talk about this as a panacea,'' Schwartz said. ``This might work OK if a ballistic missile is launched, but not if some other kind of nuclear device were used. Politics has a whole lot more to do with how it is being portrayed than any real national security concerns.''