To help put the potential value of a national missile defense system in perspective, consider three scenarios, one modeled on a historical event, the other two hypothetical. First, suppose that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait occurs 20 years later, which is to say, about now. Saddam Hussein has an arsenal of two or three long-range missiles equipped with biological or nuclear warheads. These weapons are aimed at New York and/or Washington (or even closer targets, such as Tel Aviv or London). He threatens to launch them if the United States attempts to throw him out of Kuwait. In the absence of a missile defense system, what options does the President of the United States have for dislodging Iraq from Kuwait-or preventing occupation of Saudi oilfields. The second scenario is a real, near-term possibility. Russian command and control over the launch of ICBMs has deteriorated, The Russian leadership continues to fear a U.S. first strike and believes it must keep its ICBMs on high readiness. The President of the United States receives a 'hotline' call from the President of Russia saying: 'You were right to keep warning us about the possibility of an inadvertent launch of one of our long-range missiles. In fact, this just happened, and the missile is on its way to strike Washington, D.C. You have my sincere apologies about this catastrophic event, and we will certainly do everything we can to make sure that your people understand this was not intentional. But, recognizing that you have no defensive capability, and that this means a catastrophic loss of American lives, we still think it is the wisest course for you not to respond in any equivalent or escalatory fashion, as it will undoubtedly result in an all-out nuclear exchange and the destruction of both of our countries.'.