President Clinton announced Friday he is not willing to pay up-front costs to deploy a national missile defense system if he wasn't sure it would work, due to technical difficulties.

The failure of two test flights earlier this year and other problems have postponed the earliest possible deployment of the anti-missile system — a year or two beyond the original target of 2005, Clinton said.

But because of the possible threat of a missile attack looming in the future, the Pentagon will continue developing and testing the proposed National Missile Defense program, a network of radars and interceptor missiles designed to knock down incoming warheads.

The defense system called for basing 20 interceptor missiles in Alaska by 2005, with the force growing to 100 missiles two years later, according to an article in The Washington Post.

Guided by radars and satellite sensors, each missile would boost into space a "kill vehicle" that would smash into and hopefully destroy enemy warheads. At its full strength, the Alaska-based system could shoot down about 20 warheads at a time.

Although Clinton is leaving the final decision about the defense to rest with his successor, at least this will allow more time for analysts and politicians to review the current ideas for the new system and what effects the system will have once it is in place.

And perhaps they will consider some alternatives to a mega-missile shield.

The Pentagon, however, needs to keep in mind that in building such a sturdy defense system, it is promoting paranoia of nuclear warfare among U.S. citizens.

A full-scale defense system is also not the best way to better U.S. relations with "rogue" nations such as North Korea, Iraq and Iran, and could otherwise prompt them to speed up their own efforts in continuing to build and improve their own forms of nuclear warfare.

Aside from those nations who would feel threatened by a U.S. missile defense system, the proposed plans, which is frought with uncertainty, also does not bode well with Russia, China and our European allies.

Instead of deploying a full-scale defense system, the United States should pursue a more limited defense operation as an opportunity for broader engagement with Russia, the allies, and other nations on arms control. This could eventually combat terrorism and prevent the spread of weapons technology.

Better yet, the country's leaders could focus on working toward peace instead of building up to a global Cold War.