> why would they not put satellites in orbit that could detect the IR signature of a missile launch?
The article speculates that they do not have all of the capabilities needed (putting satellites in orbit is just one of them, you also need the detection hardware on the satellites, the ground stations to process and interpret the data, and people trained to use all this stuff properly).
An alternative speculation would be that Russia actually prefers not to have a better detection capability, because then they would be responsible for using it and would be less able to complain about the US. As it is, they can claim publicly that it is the US that is destabilizing things, while covertly they continue all sorts of much more destabilizing activities.
The alternative speculation is silly. Whatever you might think about Russia, it's a rolled gold certainty that they don't want to be involved in an accidental nuclear exchange.
The article speculates that they do not have all of the capabilities needed (putting satellites in orbit is just one of them, you also need the detection hardware on the satellites, the ground stations to process and interpret the data, and people trained to use all this stuff properly).
An alternative speculation would be that Russia actually prefers not to have a better detection capability, because then they would be responsible for using it and would be less able to complain about the US. As it is, they can claim publicly that it is the US that is destabilizing things, while covertly they continue all sorts of much more destabilizing activities.