Peace Magazine , page . Some rights reserved.
Search for other articles by kgsimons here
The doomsday clock is ticking louder than it has in decades. In a world of new geopolitical fracturing, the quiet expiration of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) on February 5 marks a chilling milestone. For over half a century, the United States and Russia relied on bilateral agreements to keep the specter of nuclear annihilation at bay. Today, that diplomatic safety net has unraveled, leaving us peering into the abyss of an unchecked nuclear arms race.
In a recent, sobering panel discussion hosted by Project Save the World, three leading global disarmament promoters dissected this diplomatic corpse. They were Daryl Kimball, Executive Director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association; Tariq Rauf, an independent consultant and former official with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna; and Paul Meyer, Canada’s former Ambassador for Disarmament and current Senior Fellow of the UN Institute for Disarmament Research.
Together, they painted a stark portrait of a world rapidly losing ground on the arms control front, driven by political stagnation, the terrifying logic of nuclear deterrence, and the rising prominence of a third nuclear heavyweight: China.
To understand the magnitude of what has been lost, one must look back to the origins of the New START agreement. Negotiated in 2010 and entering into force in 2011, the treaty was the crowning achievement of a long, arduous lineage of bilateral arms control pacts between Washington and Moscow that began in the early 1970s. Its premise was both simple and monumental: to cap and significantly reduce the strategic nuclear arsenals of the two nations capable of destroying the world many times over.
“New START was important because it cut by about a quarter the number of US and Russian strategic nuclear warheads and the delivery systems the long-range missiles and bombers from previous levels,” Daryl Kimball explained from his office in Washington, D.C. Crucially, the treaty also established a robust, highly structured regime of verification and monitoring, ensuring that both sides could trust, through verification, that the other was adhering to the agreed-upon limits.
However, as of 5 February 2026, that framework is dead. The treaty expired without a successor agreement or even a framework to supersede it. Worse still, there are currently no active negotiations between the United States and Russia to forge a replacement. This diplomatic void plunges the world into a deeply uncertain and perilous period.
Without the legal constraints of New START, both the United States and Russia possess the physical capability to rapidly expand their deployed nuclear forces. As Kimball noted, there are “empty spaces” on existing intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and strategic bombers. If either nation chose to do so, they could “increase by hundreds, if not thousands, roughly doubling their arsenal in the next two to three years.” While Kimball doubts such a drastic expansion will happen immediately, the mere possibility fundamentally destabilizes global security.
The expiration of New START did not happen in a vacuum; it is the culmination of years of political maneuvering and shifting strategic priorities. President Donald Trump, now in his sixth year in office, has fundamentally altered the American approach to arms control. When announcing the U.S. departure from the New START framework, Trump argued that the bilateral treaty was a relic. Instead, he proposed that any new agreement must be modernized to encompass all forms of U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons not just strategic, long-range systems and, crucially, must include China.
While bringing China into the arms control fold is broadly considered a worthy long-term goal, critics argue that using it as a pretext to abandon existing treaties is reckless. Kimball was pointed in his critique: “We’ve heard it all before from Trump. He hasn’t accomplished anything with respect to nuclear arms control. In fact, he’s done a large number of things that have shaken the foundations of the global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament system, including threatening to resume nuclear testing.”
Russia, for its part, has stated publicly that it will continue to respect the central limits of the defunct New START treaty capping its forces at 1,550 deployed strategic warheads and 700 deployed long-range delivery vehicles provided the United States does the same. However, immense domestic pressure is building within the U.S. political and military establishment.
“There is pressure in from Congress, from the nuclear weapons establishment, the nuclear weapons deep state, if you will, on Trump to increase the number of deployed US nuclear weapons,” Kimball warned. The primary justification for this proposed buildup? The modernization and expansion of China’s nuclear forces.
For decades, the grim stability of the Cold War was maintained by the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). The logic dictates that to deter a nuclear strike, a nation must possess a survivable “second-strike” capability a force resilient enough to survive a surprise attack and deliver a devastating retaliatory blow.
Historically, the U.S. and Russia achieved this through sheer volume and a “nuclear triad” of land, sea, and air-based weapons. Neither side could realistically wipe out the other’s arsenal in a single pre-emptive strike.
China, however, historically opted for a “minimum deterrence” posture. Up until the last decade, Beijing maintained a relatively small arsenal of roughly 100 liquid-fueled, long-range missiles.
But the strategic calculus in Beijing is shifting. Fearing that their modest arsenal is increasingly vulnerable to a preemptive U.S. conventional or nuclear strike, China has embarked on a rapid modernization program. They are constructing expansive fields of new ICBM silos and filling them with modern, solid-fueled missiles.
But isn’t there such a thing as enough? To the layperson, the logic of building more weapons to feel safe seems absurd. But within the insulated world of nuclear strategists, it is a deadly serious numbers game.
“This is the logic of the Cold War nuclear deterrence madness,” Kimball explained. China is expanding its forces to ensure its retaliatory capability against the U.S., while hawks in Washington are demanding an increase in the U.S. arsenal to maintain an overwhelming advantage over both Russia and China. It is a textbook arms race, fueled by mutual paranoia.
The Trump administration’s insistence on a trilateral arms control agreement involving Washington, Moscow, and Beijing has so far proven to be a diplomatic dead end. China has consistently rebuffed these overtures, pointing out the glaring mathematical disparity. With the U.S. and Russia holding roughly 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons, Beijing argues that the two superpowers must drastically reduce their own stockpiles before dragging China to the negotiating table.
“China has, for the most part of the nuclear age, stood on the sidelines of serious nuclear disarmament diplomacy,” Kimball noted. While they are signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, they refuse to be penalized for having a smaller arsenal than their superpower rivals.
The failure of the U.S. and Russia to maintain their bilateral commitments is not merely a recent phenomenon, nor is it solely the fault of the current U.S. administration. As Kimball pointed out, there has not been effective disarmament diplomacy in over 15 years. It is a systemic failure of leadership among the world’s most heavily armed nations.
This is where the rest of the world must step in. The panel emphasized that nuclear disarmament is not just the responsibility of Washington, Moscow, and Beijing. It is a global imperative. Middle-power states, which have historically relied on the U.S. for diplomatic leadership, can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines.
Drawing on recent remarks by Prime Minister Mark Carney, the panelists highlighted the urgent need for middle powers such as Canada, European nations, and non-aligned states to assert their influence. These nations must prioritize nuclear disarmament in their foreign policies, not as a moral abstraction, but out of sheer self-interest. The fallout of a nuclear exchange, whether intentional or accidental, would not respect national borders.
The expiration of the New START treaty is a dark chapter in the history of global security, but it does not have to be the final one. The tools for diplomacy still exist. The United States and Russia could, theoretically, bypass the need for a formal, ratified treaty and agree to mutual, reciprocal limits as an interim measure. Furthermore, the U.S. and China could initiate bilateral talks focusing strictly on Nuclear Risk Reduction establishing crisis communication lines and transparency measures before tackling the insurmountable task of mutual reductions.
Under Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, all nuclear-armed states, including China, are legally obligated to engage in good-faith negotiations to end the arms race. Holding them to this commitment requires relentless international pressure.
As the conversation between the experts made abundantly clear, more nuclear weapons will not make the world safer. The illusion that security can be bought with a higher warhead count is exactly what drove the world to the brink of destruction during the Cold War. As we navigate this dangerous new era, the international community must reject the fatalistic logic of an arms race. Serious, sustained diplomacy is the only viable weapon we have against the threat of our own annihilation. The clock is ticking, and the time for middle powers to demand a seat at the table is now.