In all other respects, I believe, Russia is considered the “successor nation” to the USSR, and all treaties the USSR signed are binding on both Russia and the other signatories. I don’t know if the other former republics have similar responsibilities, but there are certainly diplomatic carrots and sticks to make sure they do. Anyone with more detailed knowledge of international treaty law, please step in.
Assuming this is so, the people who are so infatuated with Reagan’s Star Wars missile shield don’t seem to be aware of the full consequences of unilateral abrogation of the ABM treaty. It would be the first time that the US government had ever done that, and it would throw our commitment to all of our other treaties into question in the eyes of the other countries we often claim to “lead”. If we’re willing to ignore that treaty because we feel like it, what other treaties might we come to see as inconvenient? Would our word be good for anything anymore with anybody, if our signatures demonstrably weren’t? Haven’t we been laughed at enough recently, and for good enough cause?
Throughout the Cold War, it was common for the right-wing hardliners to talk about how the Soviets/Russians couldn’t be trusted, they’d look for ways around any treaty, and we alone stood for truth and justice and morality. It’s ironic and sad that they now advocate doing something morally worse, so billions can be spent to defend against an enemy that no longer exists, and in ignorance of the full consequences.
The doubtful usefulness of a system with any less than 100.000 percent reliability (inevitably the case for any real-world technology) in stopping incoming nuclear-warheaded missiles, if there were any, is enough reason not to proceed with fulfilling this holy vision of Saint Ronald.