Brought to us from the group who were the key supporters of a small group of anti-communist fighters in Afghanistan (guess who), the Star Wars missile shield and many of G.W. Bush's great ideas.

Your article is a collection of cherry-picked stats and numbers, focusing on the limitations for US defense and "loopholes" for the Russian side. However, 5 mins of research comes up with a logical rebutal of this nonsense.

Article II of the treaty limits all launchers, deployed and non-deployed, mobile or immobile:

[II.1] (c) 800, for deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, deployed and non-deployed SLBM launchers, and deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers

As for the definition of an "ICBM launcher":

28. (56.) The term "ICBM launcher" means a device intended or used to contain, prepare for launch, and launch an ICBM.

So a rail-mobile launcher is an ICBM launcher and therefore would definitely be regulated under the treaty limit of 800 non-deployed launchers...

You also state that "this is especially troubling since there appears to be a growing Russian interest in these rail-based systems, according to official Russian sources"
However, the last RT-23UTTH/SS-24 rail-mobile missiles had been removed from service in 2002 and the last base was liquidated in 2007. So it appears that you wish to base your defense strategy on claims with no evidence or merit. Cold war anyone?

I'll leave it to others to determine the merits of other points in your argument as I don't have the 20 minutes spare time it would take to dismantle the rest of this cold war style exercise in disinformation