Geopolitics is much more complicated than that. The development of these weapons, and the organizational capability to use them, is necessary and sufficient in

Geopolitics is much more complicated than that. The development of these weapons, and the organizational capability to use them, is necessary and sufficient in most cases to be used as vehicles for diplomacy. They essentially become the stick by which the myriad of trade agreements and treaties that nations develop between each other are realized. If for example, as the article says, Russia develops anti-aircraft weaponry that is capable of bringing down American aircraft, and if they sell that weaponry to countries like Egypt, Syria, and especially Iran, then the US is no longer able to secure those locations in a real or hypothetical conflict. So when, say, the US wants to contain a country like Iran and limit its nuclear capability, such as what happened last year, its negotiating ability is diminished significantly. What I'm saying ultimately is that developing these capabilities is necessary and sufficient to enable these countries to engage in diplomatic relations with other countries in the current geopolitical climate. It's not enough to hold our thumb over the world-ending button and say "We'll kill everyone if you don't do what we say!" (which is North Korea's strategy, and even they need China's backing to make their threats credible)