With nuclear arms reduction in time the interceptors will be reduced, once the rouge nations have been circumised of their nuclear arsenals or attempts to join the nuclear club, and other nations which hold nuclear arsenals cap their expansion of their arsenals in the goal of becoming be equal with the capabilities that Russia and the US. Otherwise the US and Russia will be forced to abandon reduction policies to increase their arsenals to keep the strategic edge they have had since the Cold War. Otherwise the an increase in interceptors and strike capabilites will have to be adopted which means the risk of conventional warfare is at a higher threat level, than during the Cold War. A 1000 plus non-conventional missile silos in the Irans desert, with the expansion of other nations and new players means that arms reduction is not possible to the number of targets that both the US and Russia will have to target their missiles on. A way with arms reduction and the expansion that is occcuring and if other nations do not adopt similar policies inline with Russia and the US is for a strong peace pact in which the reduced arsenals of Russia and the US are diversified on the new threats and new expansion by not being required to focus their target acquisition on each other. Whether arms reduction is applicable in the future is not only up to Russia and the US, but other nations, otherwise Russia and the US will not benefit from a strategic pact to reduce their missiles. It is debatable just what this agreement has on global security as the environment the first START treat was introduced is different. So in some aspect a global missile defence system on foreign soils between Russian and the US may have some merit. It is debatable also as in a non-polar world neither Russia or the US will have the same influence to control such debates, this can be seen via Iran, DRPK in which Russia has lost some influence. It is not bad to have one foot in the old world it was safe.

"... Perhaps Russian President Dmitri A. Medvedev can do a huge favor for all Americans who care about justice issues. When Obama demands that Russia "strengthen the rule of law," maybe Medvedev will fire back with something like this: "Mr. President, I appreciate your concern about the rule of law in Russia. But I'm also familiar with the cases of Mr. Siegelman, Mr. Minor, Mr. Wecht, Ms. Thompson, and others in your own country. To borrow a phrase from the New Testament, shouldn't you 'remove the log from your own eye before noticing the speck in mine.' "Mr. President, I respectfully suggest that you address the problems of political prisoners and other injustices in your own system. When you've shown the backbone needed to tackle those problems in your country, we would be glad to look at those problems in Russia. "After eight years under George W. Bush, America has lost its moral standing on matters of justice. Until you make a serious effort to restore that moral standing, your words will fall on deaf ears here."

I always wanted Russia and the USA to be friends, as good as or better than the USA and England. As for missle defense, why can't Russia be a active participant and set up a system in Russia also? Also, why can't we have bases in Russia and they in the USA? We can be friends, partners,and help each other. I believe in Medvedev (sorry, my computer will not let me type Russian), and I believe in Obama. All countries have different customs, laws, and ways. The USA can not dictate how others are to run their countries. They can suggest ways and options, but not dictate, and that goes for all countries. I would love to meet President Medvedev and President Obama, but I am just a little guy who is nothing to them. Let the people travel freely between countries, exchange customs, and ideas. President Medvedev, could you please get me a visa so I can visit friends in Russia and come and visit when I wish? May she have a visa also?