Editor: Kevin Akor
The expiration of the New START nuclear arms control treaty marks the end of the last remaining agreement limiting the strategic arsenals of the United States and Russia, a development that risks ushering in a more dangerous and less predictable nuclear era, according to arms control experts.
New START, signed in 2010, capped deployed strategic nuclear warheads at 1,550 for each side and included verification and transparency measures. Its expiry leaves no binding framework governing the world’s two largest nuclear powers, which together possess about 90% of global nuclear weapons.
“The demise of New START ushers in a new phase of heightened nuclear dangers,” Karim Haggag, director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, wrote in a commentary published Wednesday.
“Europe’s leaders must recognize the grave implications for European security and take action.”
Efforts to negotiate a successor treaty stalled amid geopolitical tensions and incompatible demands. The United States has insisted that China be included in any new agreement, while Russia has argued that France and the United Kingdom should also be part of future negotiations. China, whose nuclear arsenal is significantly smaller, has shown little interest in accepting limits.
President Donald J. Trump signaled last year that he wanted to pursue a new nuclear deal with Russia that would also involve China, but analysts say prospects remain slim.
“Even with a presumption of seriousness, the highly complex, patient and disciplined negotiations required for arms control do not align easily with transactional diplomacy,” Haggag said.
Analysts warn that a post-New START world is likely to see an increase in nuclear weapons. While the treaty limited deployed warheads, both Washington and Moscow retain large numbers of non-deployed and tactical nuclear weapons and are modernizing their arsenals. China, meanwhile, has rapidly expanded its nuclear forces, doubling its arsenal to an estimated 600 warheads over the past five years.
Without treaty-based verification, transparency around nuclear forces is also expected to decline.
“Without data exchanges and confidence-building measures, knowledge gaps will grow, increasing the risk of miscalculation,” Haggag said, adding that nuclear planning could increasingly be driven by worst-case assumptions.
The collapse of New START is also expected to weaken the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the cornerstone of global efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Non-nuclear states have long accepted limits on their own capabilities in exchange for commitments by nuclear powers to pursue disarmament.
“The disappearance of arms control progress undermines that core bargain,” Haggag said, warning it could fuel proliferation debates in countries such as Japan, South Korea, Poland and Ukraine.
For Europe, the security implications are particularly acute. Any successor to New START was expected to address tactical nuclear weapons, which experts say pose the most direct nuclear threat to the continent. Russia is estimated to have nearly 1,500 such weapons, compared with about 200 for the United States.
Haggag said Europe should respond by developing a continent-focused risk-reduction regime, pressing Washington to return to arms control talks, and encouraging France and the United Kingdom to signal readiness to participate in future negotiations alongside the U.S., Russia and China.
“Bolstering deterrence alone is insufficient,” he said.
“Without a viable arms control approach, the risks of deterrence only increase, compromising security rather than enhancing it.”
