This seems good now that US wants absolute nuclear primacy. Coercitive-extortive US behavior in the near future should not be discarded. On the contrary they are in the path.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html

Well, nuclear primacy is much harder to achieve than the Foreign Affairs article seems to suggest. I'll post a longer response to it shortly.

Nuclear dominance? Doubt it. The United States is struggling to find an enemy to justify the nuclear arsenal it has now. Dominate whom? For what reason? It's a new world...

Russia is an old adversity that can be a new friend. China is an old friend (Nationalist Days) that can be a new adversity (or greatest friend). The simple truth is that all three countries can be both. Think of a new world where Russia, China, and the United States agree. It’s almost like the days of British Imperialism and “spheres of influences”. If China wants Asia proper, why not? If Russia wants control over the Persian Gulf, the dream of the Czars for centuries, OK. Just guarantee the US economy oil at $25 a barrel and it’s yours. The US will take the Pacific RIM (anything not attached to the Asian continent), the Americas, and preferred trading rights in Europe. Africa, who cares? Check and balances and a new world order.

Now that’s scary.

Frank Shuler
USA

Well Frank, we should avoid discussing politics here. I just presented the above article. But, in the mean time, the life extension of “Satans” will avoid this gloomy scenario because it will “purchase time” for reshaping the Russian strategic deterrence system. In these ten years Russia may:
- Continue the deployment of Topol-m
- MIRVing some Topol-M
- Develop and deploy “land” Bulavas
- Complete and reshape the LPAR network
- Laid down some Boreys
There are also claims that Russia might withdraw from the INF treaty.

http://www.ransac.org/Projects%20and%20Publications/News/Nuclear%20News/38200634505PM.html#2F

This may allow to target some threatening spots in Eastern Europe and the Far East with cheaper missiles. In the whole this should ensure the Russian national security.

I just posted my response to the Nuclear Primacy article.

I have read your posted response to the Nuclear Primacy article and could not agree more with your conclusions. My constant banter seems to always come back to "changing world situations requires changing rules". I cheerful accept your slight admonishment on discussing politics here. So noted! However, without the political insight as to policy aren't we then left to counting silos and subs? It is a changing world that Russian's defense policy now faces; it’s more about intent than hardware. The people who forecast the decline of Russia as a world power are mistaken. Today, Russia has the largest number of nuclear weapons in the world. Russia is arguably the second most capable nuclear power on the earth. Guess what? In 20 years, she still will be.

Frank Shuler
USA

It wasn't me who wrote about discussing politics. I don't mind as long as we stay close to the subject of Russian forces.

As for the future of Russia as a world power, I believe that Russia still has a chance, but it would make a mistake if it will rely on nuclear weapons to get there.

Ahhh, the anonymous post I missed in the exchange. I take back the accepted admonishment! (grin)

Pavel, Russia will be there in 20 years because of three reasons.

1) She will possess a large, flexible nuclear deterrent

2) She has natural resources still untapped by the world's globalize economies and 240 million citizens that haven't yet to truly participated in that world market

3) Geography - Russia is the only world power that is both European and Asian

The United States and Russia have more in common interest; more to gain by agreement and compromise. Let's drop the nuclear inventory of both countries to 1000 weapons and see what happens.

Frank Shuler
USA