<! ------------------------START MAIN COPY HERE------------------- <! -----------------------START PICTURE TABLE------------------- he United States' plan for a national missile defence (NMD) system seems like nothing more than a dream.
Technologically it would be an amazing feat, essentially eliminating the threat of nuclear attack.
But politically it could be a disaster.
The object of the NMD system is to give the U.S. the power to protect itself from incoming ballistic missiles, whether launched by accident or as an attack from so-called "rogue states."
The system would also protect other countries, such as Japan which lies within striking distance of North Korea.
However, countries like Russia and China warn that creating a missile defence system would destabilize the current balance of nuclear power by giving the Americans the upper hand, and that could start a new arms race.
Others say the end of the Cold War marked the end of the need for defence systems the likes of President Ronald Reagan's Star Wars project.
<! -----------------------START PICTURE TABLE------------------- Russia also said it wasn't going to cut back on its strategic nuclear missiles if the United States violates the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty. The 1972 treaty, in which the two countries agreed not to develop missile defence systems, is credited for what has been almost 30 years of nuclear stability around the world.
In January 1999, the Russian Nezavisimaya Gazeta newspaper said the NMD system was an attack on Russia that aimed at "overcoming the last remaining barrier to American world domination." 
ashington assured Russia it had nothing to worry about. The system is intended to protect against possible threats from countries such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea. North Korea already has weapons that can reach Japan and is believed to be ready to test a Taepodong-2 missile that could travel as far as Alaska or Hawaii.
In fact, at one point President Bill Clinton threatened to veto the NMD bill unless certain changes were made, including affirming a U.S. commitment to working with Russia to reduce weapons. The bill was amended and in March 1999 was passed in the Senate by a vote of 97 to 3.
In February 2001, Russia presented NATO with a counterproposal to the U.S. plan, one that would be tactical in nature and that would put the emphasis on evaluating individual threats rather than on military hardware. Russia says its proposal would leave the ABM treaty intact. However, Washington has proposed the treaty be amended so the NMD project can go ahead.
Russia and China aren't alone in their objections. Nearly every non-nuclear state at the United Nations is opposed to the American plan.
anada has yet to officially say where it stands on the issue, neither denouncing the technology nor declaring its undying support.
However, Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy spoke out against it at a United Nations conference in April 2000. He said a missile defence system could threaten international security and damage the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
<! -----------------------START PICTURE TABLE------------------- "Why make a decision on a highly expensive, unproven arms system that could have major repercussions on the broad arms control regime when there are other options?" Axworthy said later when speaking to reporters. "There are ways of dealing with these matters multilaterally."
Canada's opinion may not seem to matter all that much. The Americans don't need Canada geographically (the U.S. would already have North America covered and Canada certainly poses no nuclear threat) and they hardly need our permission. But analysts say the U.S. would likely find it more difficult to persuade countries like South Korea or China to support the project if it doesn't even have the support of one of its friendliest neighbours.
The U.S. has been lobbying Canada &#150 along with all NATO countries &#150 for support. In March 2000, Canadian reporters were invited to the Pentagon by U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre. They were told if Canada won't actively support America's National Missile Defense system, it would find its role as a partner in NORAD significantly diminished.
Still, Canada has limited its participation to research and consultation with the U.S. and other countries to understand how the technology would work and how it would be used. If a missile defence system does become a reality, Canada doesn't want to be left in the dark.
espite the political problems, its seems that the biggest obstacle preventing the NMD system from becoming a reality is the fact that the technology just doesn't work, well not yet anyway.
When the U.S. announced its intention to develop a Ronald Reagan Star-Wars-like defence system in February 1996, the plan was to have the technology working by 1999 and the system deployed by 2002.
Of course that didn't happen.
The U.S. national missile defence system would be composed of two main elements. Ground systems and satellites would provide an early warning system, allowing the U.S. to detect missiles soon after they're launched. And a battery of "kill missiles" would give them the ability to intercept and destroy the incoming missiles.
But the NMD system is turning out to be one of the most complex weapons ever designed, so complex some say it will never work. Every test of the technology so far has failed.
In January 2000, the U.S. military conducted a mock nuclear attack. A Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile, designed to carry a nuclear warhead, was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Twenty minutes later, another smaller missile was launched from the Marshall Islands about 7,000 kilometres away. The second missile was supposed to hit the first, but it missed.
They tried again in July, but again the target was missed. One military official described it as trying to hit a bullet with another bullet. 
The repeated failures are certainly bad news for U.S. military officials who hope to gain support from the international community. And it doesn't leave them with much of a defence against critics who say the $700 million US project is a waste of taxpayers' money and the funds should go towards social programs instead. 
<! -----------------------START PICTURE TABLE------------------- The Pentagon had extended its deadline for deployment of the NMD system to 2005, but in September 2000, President Clinton said he wasn't confident it would be ready in time. It's now in the hands of his successor, President George W. Bush, who has said he would deploy a system like NMD "at the earliest possible date."
<! -----------------------START LINKS TABLE-------------------