Russian General Threatens Arms Race, Again

[Grand Danois]

Can someone tell me how is posible that US is so worried about EU security that it decided to place missile defence shield on its teritory without consulting EU??
-- sorry for my bad english!

Simple. EU has influence on world- and US policies and options. A Europe held ransom by, say, Iranian missiles will impact on US options.

Russia may quit the 1987 INF, but is not going to build any SRBM/MRBM. There is no need, as Europe/NATO is not a threat by any measure. So this would be wasted resources which are much needed elsewhere.

The SRBM statement is meant for Russian opinion making in the new EU countries, it's not a statement of actual intent.

 

[merocaine]

Simple. EU has influence on world- and US policies and options. A Europe held ransom by, say, Iranian missiles will impact on US options.

I think you got that right but for the wrong reasons. A European/Russian Relationship without real tensions would impact on US options, Iran is a bit of a sideshow, US, European, and Russian relations are the main event.
Europe has enough nuclear weopons aviable to turn Iran into a glass desert.
Europe would survive any nuclear exchange with Iran, the Iranians would not be so fortunate.
what interests me is the positioning of those missles, why not bulgaria and romania, or turkey, or greece? Poland and Cezh are alot further north.
If I was Russian I would see a missle shield positoned that far north as aimed at me not a potential threat out of Iran. Continuing tension between Russia and eastern europe helps keep europe as a whole divided. I still remember the old europe new europe crap. A European Russian relationship without military tension would not be perticularly helpful to the Americans, the name of the game is devide and rule.

Russia may quit the 1987 INF, but is not going to build any SRBM/MRBM. There is no need, as Europe/NATO is not a threat by any measure. So this would be wasted resources which are much needed elsewhere.

O NATO is the biggest threat Russia faces, Nato and american bases encircle the country, radically changing its security enviroment and limiting its options to stop the Russian federation fragmenting. It is not hard to imagine a missle shield that renders the Russian nuclear arsenal greatly less effective thus exposing them to Nato/US conventional military superiorty. You would have to be a fool not to react to this.

 

[Grand Danois]

I think you got that right but for the wrong reasons. A European/Russian Relationship without real tensions would impact on US options, Iran is a bit of a sideshow, US, European, and Russian relations are the main event.

Yes. And no. Complex subject. I have picked some of your points for now and will revisit the others later.

Europe has enough nuclear weopons aviable to turn Iran into a glass desert. Europe would survive any nuclear exchange with Iran, the Iranians would not be so fortunate.

Sure, the Europeans have deterrence, but that is not what is in at work. The US options will effectively be restricted with a "rogue state" holding European cities at risk, despite the deterrence. It may be a suicide option for the "rogue state", however, the mere possibility is enough.

what interests me is the positioning of those missles, why not bulgaria and romania, or turkey, or greece? Poland and Cezh are alot further north.
If I was Russian I would see a missle shield positoned that far north as aimed at me not a potential threat out of Iran.

I have not had a proper look at it yet, though this has also piqued my curiosity. Why in Poland/Czeck republic? On the surface it looks like a sub optimal solution.

There a many considerations done when placing such a system, here are some possibilities I can think of.

Physical geography. What kind of footprint does the GBI have and how does it work conceptually?

The GBI are not stand-alone. SM-3 on AEGIS can cover Balkan from the Med and Black Sea. Also, BM trajectories behave oddly on maps. You have to look at a oblique stereographic projection with center in NW Iran to get a sense of this.

Political geography. Who does the US wish to protect? The main players - UK, France, Germany, Poland, etc.? When chosing the site, who are mature members of NATO/EU and who consider the US their guarantor of security - and thus are unlikely to take the system hostage according to political whims. Lastly, who has a political environment that allows for stationing of such a system...

This would make Poland/Czeck Republic excellent candiates.

Continuing tension between Russia and eastern europe helps keep europe as a whole divided. I still remember the old europe new europe crap. A European Russian relationship without military tension would not be perticularly helpful to the Americans, the name of the game is devide and rule.

O NATO is the biggest threat Russia faces, Nato and american bases encircle the country, radically changing its security enviroment and limiting its options to stop the Russian federation fragmenting. It is not hard to imagine a missle shield that renders the Russian nuclear arsenal greatly less effective thus exposing them to Nato/US conventional military superiorty. You would have to be a fool not to react to this.

I'll leave these for later. They have to do with how the US admin has played their cards in the recent years, and how the advocates of the multipolar world have had a field day. I have seen elsewhere on DT how easily this can go haywire...

Let me just note that Putin in München made quite clear what a multipolar world looks like in his optics, and how the world is realising that they actually don't like it at all. Now it is Putin who plays the cards poorly.

Putin's speech: Back to cold war?

By Rob Watson
BBC defence and security correspondent, Munich

The Munich security conference was born in the 1960s - the height of the Cold War. Forty years on, there has been talk of a new chill.

Given the tone and content of Russian President Vladimir Putin's address to the gathered defence ministers, parliamentarians and pundits, it is not, perhaps, hard to see why.

Warming quickly to his task after only the briefest of greetings, President Putin accused the US of establishing, or trying to establish, a "uni-polar" world.

"What is a uni-polar world? No matter how we beautify this term, it means one single centre of power, one single centre of force and one single master," he said.

'Formula for disaster'

President Putin continued in a similar vein for some time.

"The United States has overstepped its borders in all spheres - economic, political and humanitarian, and has imposed itself on other states," he said.

It was a formula that, he said, had led to disaster: "Local and regional wars did not get fewer, the number of people who died did not get less but increased. We see no kind of restraint - a hyper-inflated use of force."

The US has gone "from one conflict to another without achieving a fully-fledged solution to any of them", Mr Putin said.

With the new US Defence Secretary Robert Gates and several US congressmen sitting in the audience, he called for the reconsideration of the whole existing architecture of global security.

'Disappointing' speech

But he did not win over his audience.

Several delegates did not like his rather brusque brushing off of questions about Russia's own commitment to democracy and his defence of Moscow's decision to sell an air-defence system to Iran.

Nato Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer described President Putin's speech as "disappointing and not helpful". And there was similar reaction from the president of Estonia and others.

But it was left to US Republican senator and presidential hopeful John McCain to lead the retort.

Today's world, he said sternly, was not uni-polar, adding that it was an autocratic Russia that needed to change its behaviour.

"Moscow must understand that it cannot enjoy a genuine partnership with the West so long as its actions at home and abroad conflict so fundamentally with the core values of Euro-Atlantic democracies," he said.

"In today's multi-polar world, there is no place for needless confrontation, and I would hope that Russian leaders understand this truth," Senator McCain said.

Spotlight on Moscow

Afterwards in the corridors there were dark mutterings by some about a new Cold War.

Others were less gloomy, dismissing President Putin's performance as one of Russia's periodic bouts of letting off steam at its diminished world status.

But it has made an impression.

For the last few years, as one observer suggested, it was the former US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, who was the man everybody loved to hate at this conference.

President Putin's performance has single-handedly switched the spotlight from the US to Russia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6350847.stm

The US doesn't have to do the divide and conquer. Russia is doing all the work for them.

What was it with those tactical missiles Russia is threatening with?

 

[Distiller]

On the GBI positioning in the Czech Republic:
To intercept a launch from somewhere in Iran against the U.S. east coast. Even better position would probably be Austria or Croatia, but that's political no-go-land.

And regarding the Russian's reactions. Of course militarily total BS, just the games people play here to get back onto the international show and feel good. Anybody thinking in such dimensions (again) knows that Russian ICBM's launched against the U.S. are on a polar trajectory that doesn't lead across Europe.

And what Putin and the Chief of Staff said is basically digging up the old SS-20.

 

[dioditto]

What money do they have to spend? Russia's military is still suffering from major budget short falls. They are developing new ballistic missiles, but the most recent tests have been unsuccessful. Their military has made small steps in increasing their technology with new equipment including an updated Tu-160, new Su-34's, and Mi-28's. Currently these platforms are being acquired in such small numbers that do not pose any significant threat to the United States or NATO. Their nuclear submarine is slowing being dismantled, because they can't afford it. Then Russia wants the U.S., Europe, and Japan to help pay for decommissioning of these submarines.

They are slowly upgrading their nuclear force from the oil and gas money they recently got.

I still don't understand why Russia & Putin are so against the U.S. missile defense program. The program was never designed to stop an all out attack from a country like Russia, but to stop a small scale attack from a country like North Korea or China. Currently the program is so young they lack the capability to even repel a small attack from the PRC.

If the NMD can work against China, it's only matter of time before it can stop even Russia. (by putting in more NMD missiles)

 

[dioditto]

I understand that ICBM's is pretty much what Russia has left, and they have been used in direct threats after the cold war.
The problem with that policy is:
The threatned party might behave - for the moment - but will constantly be on the lookout forwways to get away from the bully.
More important: If Russia threatnes with nukes, it leaves the USA in a different position:
Any way - short of war - will be used against Russia to hinder their ambition; but Russia is apparently ready to live with that.

Did you ever consider it's the US that's always threatening OTHERS with their nukes? (Korean war, Hong Kong (UK), Vietnam) It's always very funny to see american oblivious to their own action.

 

[Grand Danois]

On the GBI positioning in the Czech Republic:
To intercept a launch from somewhere in Iran against the U.S. east coast. Even better position would probably be Austria or Croatia, but that's political no-go-land.

To defend Europe from Iran.

 

[Grand Danois]

If the NMD can work against China, it's only matter of time before it can stop even Russia. (by putting in more NMD missiles)

The PRC has 12-18 nukes that can reach CONUS with a similar number of warheads. The Russians have 150-200 times that.

 

[dioditto]

You can dig all the underground bunkers that you want, what are you going to come out to, you cannot stay there forever. I find it disturbing that Russia feels that they have to build more Missiles in this day and age, all the more reason for my country to get our Anti missle system up and running.

I find it even more disturbing that you, eckherl (like the rest of the american), don't apply what you said to yourself. The US is continuely to develop, and deploy new weapon system on almost daily basis, what's other country to do? Give up arms?

The US is continuously developing new weapon of mass destruction, (X-51 Hypersonic cruise missile) B-2 stealth bomber which is nuclear capable, no other country has ever develop such weapon of mass destruction yet, let along deploy.

Just what kind of standard are you applying here?

 

[Grand Danois]

Did you ever consider it's the US that's always threatening OTHERS with their nukes? (Korean war, Hong Kong (UK), Vietnam) It's always very funny to see american oblivious to their own action.

Funny how a thread on Russian threats are instantly turned into how bad and double standardsy the Americans are, and how everything is ultimately their fault.

I (and Ths) is from that funny little country called Denmark - you know the one that was targeted with 50-70 nukes just so the Warzaw Pact navies could break out of the Baltic (if they could not take us in a week, then the nukes were to be let lose).

The Soviets had preemptive strikes as part of their war planning against Europe - not an American invention.

 

[dioditto]

The PRC has 12-18 nukes that can reach CONUS with a similar number of warheads. The Russians have 150-200 times that.

That is merely a number. If the system can work, it is far cheaper to create NMD missile than to make nuclear missiles, since there are far less uranium on earth than the materials used to make NMD missiles. Once the system prove workable, they can massively scale up the production if needed, and I am sure that's all part of the plan. Or what else is the point of making it?

 

[Grand Danois]

That is merely a number. If the system can work, it is far cheaper to create NMD missile than to make nuclear missiles, since there are far less uranium on earth than the materials used to make NMD missiles. Once the system prove workable, they can massively scale up the production if needed, and I am sure that's all part of the plan. Or what else is the point of making it?

Hehe. This is my argument.

I cannot see the NMD work on that scale. I can see it work on "rogue nation" scale.

 

[dioditto]

Funny how a thread on Russian threats are instantly turned into how bad and double standardsy the Americans are, and how everything is ultimately their fault.

I (and Ths) is from that funny little country called Denmark - you know the one that was targeted with 50-70 nukes just so the Warzaw Pact navies could break out of the Baltic (if they could not take us in a week, then the nukes were to be let lose).

The Soviets had preemptive strikes as part of their war planning against Europe - not an American invention.

The ones that are constantly accusing others on the world stage, are the americans. Unless you don't know how to read, (and I am sure you do, but you are simply ignorant) you should know that.

The Russian's first strike strategy for europe was for their own protection. You do realise the americans, have bases in europe all armed with nuclear missiles; while the russians, on the other hand had none else where. It is their only strategic deterent against american invasion. I guess you won't see it in that light since you are already bias.

Let me ask you, if the Russians have numerous large bases in south america with IRBM and ICBM with significant force deployment there, to be able to critically threaten american forces, do you think the american are going to have only second strike policy? LOL. Ofcourse they won't.

 

[dioditto]

Hehe. This is my argument.

I cannot see the NMD work on that scale. I can see it work on "rogue nation" scale.

I simply disagree. Once NMD works, the production can definitely be scale up. And once that's done, it can definitely threaten russia into submission.

The whole point of NMD is to achieve advantagous disparity in the WMD race, and why would american limit themselve on these advantages once the system is prove workable?

Why is it that everybody assumes that ABM will stand alone???
I - if nobody else - believe the reason the B-2 was build was to take out the Russian (maybe Chinese) missiles in their siloes. This assumption builds on the observation that the B-1 and B-52 doesn't seem to have problems solving the tasks assigned to them.

So the ABM will only have to knock out the missiles that actually leave the silo, which it might not for a number of reasons beside having to contend with a PGM bunker buster in the noodle. Rockets might misfire, be under maintainence...
This is one of the reasons behind the socalled "overkill", where there is build more warheads than needed to take out all targets - provided all missiles hit. The overkill is a ratio between what you've got and what the enemy is going to get.

The american have offensive advantages (look above quote) while they are building up their defensive advantages to achieve total dominance.

The whole point right now is that the american have achieve this advantagous disparity and they are threatening others actively and aggressively. This is what american hegemony all about. Just read the above quote. The american right now is hell bent on keeping this unipolarity... heaven forbid if they lose it.

 

[merocaine]

OK, OK, lets not refight the Cold War!

At the moment NMD is more a political statement than a military one. It's ability is a little suspect. GD in its present incarnation the US NMD system is'ent a threat to the Russian deterent, it would be quickly swamped, so the Russians are being a little disingenious in claiming it to be a threat. But going on past records the US is capible of developing robust systems quicker than anyone else on the planet. NMD might be a straw man today, tomorrow who knows.
If Europe was so concerned why is'ent it building its own NMD system (not that i think it should'ent per se), if it is Iranian missiles that we are worried about, then its our problem, they cant reach the US east coast, the americans arent threathened directly, we are.

Politically the NMD system is being used to tie key european countries tighter into a US led allience, if your like me, and see Europe, in the future, plowing a more independent course politically and military from the US, then this is a worrying development.
Already we have some 'rent a row' Russian General saying that Poland and the Cech Republic will be targeted if the NMD system is deployed on there terrirory. Posturing, maybe.
I dont like the idea of European countries being manipulated like this. This whole thing is souring our relations with the Russians, who we depend on for gas and oil to a large degree, and it is souring our relations with little visible benift to our selves.
Honestly I dont see a theat to Europe from Iran, we have the deterent to deal with the Iranians, I just dont see why they would want to pick a fight with us. The idea of a nuclear suicide threat aimed at Europe from a fanatical Iranian regime, is frankly silly.
Anyway do you really see the Americans abandoning NMD in europe if Iran
A/backs down?
B/ Has its Nuclear network bombed out?

At the end of the day I see this whole issue as a sign of continuing European weakness, political and military.

I agree with you about Putin, it was a suprising speech, but then he has been banging that drum for quite a while, just never infront of such a high profile audience. A poor reception was garranted, it is the Munich conferance after all. But I suspect some of the delegates would have agreed with number of his points. I would love to get my hands on a transcript, most of what I heard about it has been filtered through peoples reactions.

just found this in my favorite rag

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2019754,00.html

 

[dioditto]

OK, OK, lets not refight the Cold War!

At the moment NMD is more a political statement than a military one. It's ability is a little suspect. GD in its present incarnation the US NMD system is'ent a threat to the Russian deterent, it would be quickly swamped, so the Russians are being a little disingenious in claiming it to be a threat. But going on past records the US is capible of developing robust systems quicker than anyone else on the planet. NMD might be a straw man today, tomorrow who knows.
If Europe was so concerned why is'ent it building its own NMD system (not that i think it should'ent per se), if it is Iranian missiles that we are worried about, then its our problem, they cant reach the US east coast, the americans arent threathened directly, we are.

There are many US bases in Europe you know that? (ofcourse you do)
The point is, if US wants to take unilateral action against middle eastern states (Iran/Syria particular) without the backing of UN, and IF the Russian feels threaten or too close for their comfort that they decide to get involved, these bases in Europe will be directly threaten. That is why US is pushing for the NMD, as a way to unrestraining themself and attack the middle east more freely.

Politically the NMD system is being used to tie key european countries tighter into a US led allience, if your like me, and see Europe, in the future, plowing a more independent course politically and military from the US, then this is a worrying development.

That's what I see also. It increases american strategic military control in the European continent. Unless European develops its own NMD, it will have to rely on the american indefinitely. Let alone asking the American to LEAVE. (which I don't think that will ever happen).

Already we have some 'rent a row' Russian General saying that Poland and the Cech Republic will be targeted if the NMD system is deployed on there terrirory. Posturing, maybe.

I dont like the idea of European countries being manipulated like this. This whole thing is souring our relations with the Russians, who we depend on for gas and oil to a large degree, and it is souring our relations with little visible benift to our selves.

Why not? So, the Russian just going to let their nuclear missiles become obsolete piece of junk by being shot down over Poland and Czch? Ofcourse they going to take out these defense first to guarantee their missile could hit america. The americans, are essentially building speed bumps on European continent for the Russian missiles.. Europe could be destroyed for all they care, as long as the defense is put as far away from continental USA, between Russia and US, it's fine for them since it will be the Europeans who will be taking hit from Russian ICBM before the last batch reach US.

Honestly I dont see a theat to Europe from Iran, we have the deterent to deal with the Iranians, I just dont see why they would want to pick a fight with us. The idea of a nuclear suicide threat aimed at Europe from a fanatical Iranian regime, is frankly silly.
Anyway do you really see the Americans abandoning NMD in europe if Iran
A/backs down?
B/ Has its Nuclear network bombed out?

At the end of the day I see this whole issue as a sign of continuing European weakness, political and military.

It is called.. American hegemony. Keep your friend weak, keep your enemy even weaker...

I agree with you about Putin, it was a suprising speech, but then he has been banging that drum for quite a while, just never infront of such a high profile audience. A poor reception was garranted, it is the Munich conferance after all. But I suspect some of the delegates would have agreed with number of his points. I would love to get my hands on a transcript, most of what I heard about it has been filtered through peoples reactions.

What you don't understand is this.. politics is about posturing, a country is like a very large ship.. it's hard to steer and change direction quickly, so any subtle directional change in policy is a signal of a larger change to come. For example, the recent Chinese ASAT test. They were merely testing their weapon on their own satellite, and that immediately angers and "concerned" the american. This can be seen as the same reaction the Russian has to US's NMD. It is not merely about the technology or capability, it is about the intent to which to pursue the goal. The current aggressive posturing from the American side alarms the Moscow, and I am sure Putin have far better intelligence (from SVR/GRU, although I think he is an intelligent man nontheless ) and analysts that debrief him than you or me who only get info from the news. They know far more of what's coming, or underneath all these political posturing and implications of technological advances than all of us on this forum.

 

[merocaine]

There are many US bases in Europe you know that? (ofcourse you do)
The point is, if US wants to take unilateral action against middle eastern states (Iran/Syria particular) without the backing of UN, and IF the Russian feels threaten or too close for their comfort that they decide to get involved, these bases in Europe will be directly threaten. That is why US is pushing for the NMD, as a way to unrestraining themself and attack the middle east more freely.

I'm not so sure, I think there are enough US targets in the middle east for the Iranians to attack. If Europe stays out of a conflict it would not be in the Iranians interests suck Europe into to a fight. Althought those long range missles mean the Iranians have good insurence, they could certainly make the Europeans think twice about intervening. But again you come up against the fact that the would face an overwhelming nuclear response, even a proportanal response would be devastating.

By the way, we were a speed bump during the cold war! somethings dont change so quickly, the Americans are a sane bunch, why fight in America when you can fight them in europe!

What you don't understand is this.. politics is about posturing, a country is like a very large ship.. it's hard to steer and change direction quickly, so any subtle directional change in policy is a signal of a larger change to come. The aggressive posturing from the American side alarms the Moscow, and I am sure Putin have far better intelligence (from FSB, I think he is an intelligent man nontheless ) and analysts that debrief him than you or me who only get info from the news. They know far more of what's coming, or underneath all these political posturing and implications of technological advances than all of us on this forum.

I can only go on what I read in the papers and books on FP, and decide from there. I would'ent be so sure abot the sluthing abilites of Inteligence services, they seem to have got it wrong more often than not recently, and when they have been right havent been able to make there goverments listen.... while some on this forum seem scarily well informed!

 

[dioditto]

I'm not so sure, I think there are enough US targets in the middle east for the Iranians to attack. If Europe stays out of a conflict it would not be in the Iranians interests suck Europe into to a fight. Althought those long range missles mean the Iranians have good insurence, they could certainly make the Europeans think twice about intervening. But again you come up against the fact that the would face an overwhelming nuclear response, even a proportanal response would be devastating.

By the way, we were a speed bump during the cold war! somethings dont change so quickly, the Americans are a sane bunch, why fight in America when you can fight them in europe!

I am not talking about Iranian threatening Europe. Iranian won't have capability to threaten Europe for another 10-20 years atleast, probably longer, probably never. I am talking about Russian's backing of Iran or possible direct involvement. Russia feel uncomfortable with American's strategy of forming a ring around them with NMD. If it decided to break out that ring and start escalating conflict to wider Europe... hey, who knows.

 

[Grand Danois]

The ones that are constantly accusing others on the world stage, are the americans. Unless you don't know how to read, (and I am sure you do, but you are simply ignorant) you should know that.

So you think this qualify as an argument for anything? The Russians, Chinese and Americans accuse each other and other players all the time. You just try to fit the world into your particular view and focus on the Americans.

The Russian's first strike strategy for europe was for their own protection. You do realise the americans, have bases in europe all armed with nuclear missiles; while the russians, on the other hand had none else where.

Both NATO and the Soviets considered their strategies and doctrines defensive. The odd thing was that the fight would be in the rubble of NATO cities in both cases.

Before claiming others to be ignorant, you better make sure you are not patently off the facts yourself. Earlier the INF treaty was brought up, you apparently need to read up on that. Since 1991 the US has had no (zero, 0, nil) nuclear armed ballistic missiles or cruise missiles in Europe. They have 600 free fall nukes of which 450 where for delivery by NATO allies. IIRC Denmark, Belgium and Holland have not practiced delivery since the mid nineties. the same probably applies to Germany and Italy.

The purpose of these weapons was to allow frontline nations to have a nuclear option, to ensure a nuclear response to a nuclear attack on those countries, independent deterrent. Secondarily to constrain potential nuclear countries from going down the weapons path.

So the US nukes in Europe are in storage, out of range of Russia, with no procedures or infrastructure of delivery.

It is their only strategic deterent...

Deterrent against what? They are not a superpower, probably never will be again. Most countries do not have nuclear weapons - Germany, Italy, Japan. Russia has the deterrent of a great power.

The US is not gonna attack Russia. And Europe certainly isn't either.

Russia is playing politics of intimidation.

...against american invasion. I guess you won't see it in that light since you are already bias.

You mean that because I find the idea that the Americans are going to invade Russia silly, I am biased?

The Russians are *not* under threat of military attack from NATO. Why would NATO want to do that? And with what? The Polish and Baltic armies?

Let me ask you, if the Russians have numerous large bases in south america with IRBM and ICBM with significant force deployment there, to be able to critically threaten american forces, do you think the american are going to have only second strike policy? LOL. Ofcourse they won't.

See above. The Americans do *not* have bases with nuclear ballistic or cruise missiles encircling Russia. AFAIK not in Europe. I am btw, noting significant US troop reductions in Europe. And no, the reshuffle is *not* aimed at Russia.

Sorry, no "double standards".

Biased, eh?

 

[Grand Danois]

I simply disagree. Once NMD works, the production can definitely be scale up. And once that's done, it can definitely threaten russia into submission.

Agree that production can be scaled up, MAD will cease to exist. But Russia does not need MAD. Just a credible deterrence, like most other nuclear powers.

The whole point of NMD is to achieve advantagous disparity in the WMD race, and why would american limit themselve on these advantages once the system is prove workable?

Yes, and obviously Europe should have this advantage too.

The american have offensive advantages (look above quote) while they are building up their defensive advantages to achieve total dominance.

The US is probably able to succesfully first strike Russia right now. NMD changes little.

The whole point right now is that the american have achieve this advantagous disparity and they are threatening others actively and aggressively. This is what american hegemony all about. Just read the above quote. The american right now is hell bent on keeping this unipolarity... heaven forbid if they lose it.

I don't think the unipolarity is so unipolar as you think it is. And if so, then American unipolarity is much better than Putinesque multipolarity.