Russia does not want to be dragged into another arms race, but it should not ignore the emerging threats.

The Kremlin's most obvious reply to the U.S. missile defense deployment plans to build a Ground-based Mid-course Interceptor base in Poland would be to equip the Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missiles of Russia's Strategic Missile Force with supersonic maneuverable warheads, using jammers, and reducing the boost phase of Russian missiles.

It also would be important for the Strategic Missile Force to upgrade its ICBM arsenal with more multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles warheads.

Russia also could revive its program to develop global missiles, which could be put into near-Earth orbits and directed at enemy territory while bypassing missile defenses.

It may be worth revising the role of tactical nuclear weapons. First of all, Russia should give up its unilateral commitments to reduce them, separate warheads, or redeploy in the middle of the country. Maybe it should even station them as far out as possible -- say, in the Baltic enclave of the Kaliningrad Region. Currently Tochka-U tactical missiles with a range of 72 miles are stationed there. Russia also could deploy Iskanders, with a range of up to 300 miles.

Initially any missiles in Kaliningrad would be strictly non-nuclear, but they could be equipped with nuclear warheads when Poland hosts the interceptors and the radar starts monitoring Russian territory from the Czech Republic.

START-I, the strategic arms control treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union, expires at the end of next year. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov believes no vacuum should be allowed to develop in the sphere of arms control, and so a replacement treaty is likely to be negotiated.

However, for obvious reasons, reducing the number of strategic offensive arms enhances the role of missile defense systems -- their combat effectiveness is inversely proportional to the number of attacking missile warheads they are meant to defend against.

Therefore, Russia in the next few decades should keep an adequate nuclear deterrent, which must become one of the most important military and political tasks. The new treaty should not be one-sided, as START-I was.

Russia is facing real threats. Russia is tolerated and sometimes even taken into account primarily because of its nuclear missile shield.

No matter what U.S. military leaders may say, neither Russia nor the United States can fully protect itself against a missile strike. Therefore, now that the United States is deploying its missile defenses in other countries and in space, Russia should make sure its retaliation would still deal unacceptable damage to the enemy.

(Yury Zaitsev is an academic adviser at the Russian Academy of Engineering Sciences in Moscow. This article is reprinted by permission of RIA Novosti. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.)

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)