Centuries-old tensions??? Come on, Dan Talpariu! United States has been a super-power for 60-70 years or 100 years at most. Russia has been a super-power for more than 300 years. 1990-s have been over already fortunately and US empire is perishing, so lets's not play tricks with words-it is not Russian Weapons Against American Ones, it is about a mere defence of national independence of Russia. Hungry and exhausted of mass obesity (in the direct meaning of the word) US wants more resources-oil, gas, clean water, rich soils.
The only solution and way out of this dreadful situation is to defend themselves. US has proved to be a worthless and good-for-nothing world leader. Russians< at least, with all their shortcomings would build schools, plants, universities and hospitals at their OWN ! expense. Nothing like that can be expected from Americans... Сognition comes through comparison...

Russia is no longer the biggest threat to the United States and vise versa. Its CHINA. There are billions of them and they are all cramped into one little county, so it is verry likly that it will try to expand on its northern nabor. The United States owes $772 billion dolars to China. The chinese are increaseing their arms and they are mad at the USA because they are suppying wepons to Tiawan.

the US I don't believe is a bad superpower, the US empire probably isn't crumbling, the only real reason i could see the US crumbling is Military overstretch, but the fact is that it was because iraq/afghan wars because we had too many troops and too much money in it, which we're removing troops and its not like Russia wasn't spending on Afghanistan either, and i believe the real way to get out of the debt is to stop spending so much on the military and focus more domestically, and i believe that hard power is dead, i think as a world we need to engage each other with diplomacy, i think the author is right, we should engage in a space weapons ban, because there is no reason why anyone would need them. If we do this, and stop the deployment of ICBM intercepts (which aren't constituted as defense when you can threaten the effectiveness of a nuclear deterrent, destroying their second strike capability) because they'll just cause problems. I believe that we should simply increase survive-ability of space assets if we fear an anti-satellite attack, then obviously have a retaliation is someone broke from the treaty. As a great coach in football once said, "Offense wins games, Defense wins Championships."

This is obviously an anti-American, pro-Russian point of view that I cannot comment on. But my choice of words is not arbitrary. Nor is the article in favor of any of the sides. Quite the obvious, actually. If you read other articles of this type, you'll read between the lines (or sometimes even straight on) that any money spent on killing people could instead help them tenfold, thus I cannot be supporting any country that chooses to insanely invest in military efforts.
Dan TalpaLAriu (sic!),
Softpedia Science News Editor