For more than half a century, nuclear arms control functioned as a fragile but vital guardrail against catastrophe. That era has now come to an unmistakable end.
With the expiration of the New START treaty, the United States and Russia are no longer bound by any formal limits on the size or structure of their nuclear arsenals for the first time since 1972. The collapse of this final agreement arrives at a moment of heightened global instability, rapid technological change, and a renewed appetite for nuclear expansion — not only among traditional superpowers, but across a widening circle of nations.
What was once an effort to prevent escalation is now giving way to a global race defined by modernization, deterrence, and strategic ambiguity.
The End of a Nuclear Framework
When New START was ratified in 2010, it symbolized continuity: a belief that even in an adversarial world, restraint was possible. The treaty capped deployed strategic warheads and delivery systems, extended verification mechanisms, and preserved a minimal level of transparency between Washington and Moscow.
That structure has now vanished.
The war in Ukraine froze diplomatic channels. Attempts to extend or renegotiate the treaty never advanced. When asked why no interim agreement was pursued, President Donald Trump dismissed the expiration with characteristic bluntness: “If it expires, it expires.”
With no replacement in sight, both nations are free to expand arsenals precisely as they embark on new generations of nuclear weapons, delivery systems, and battlefield doctrines that were scarcely imaginable when arms control was first conceived.
A World Re-Arming
The unraveling of U.S.–Russian arms control has triggered ripple effects far beyond bilateral relations.
China, once committed to a policy of “minimum deterrence,” is rapidly expanding its nuclear forces. U.S. intelligence estimates suggest Beijing is on track to exceed 1,000 warheads by 2030. Hypersonic weapons, orbital delivery systems, and theater-range nuclear capabilities are reshaping strategic calculations in the Pacific.
Russia, meanwhile, is testing exotic weapons designed to evade missile defenses — including undersea nuclear drones and space-based systems — while repeatedly hinting at the possible battlefield use of nuclear arms in Ukraine. These threats have eroded long-standing taboos that once constrained escalation.
North Korea continues to refine its arsenal. India and Pakistan maintain volatile deterrence dynamics. And nations long sheltered by the American “nuclear umbrella” are quietly reassessing their reliance on U.S. guarantees.
Allies in Doubt
Perhaps the most destabilizing shift is psychological.
European and Asian allies are openly questioning whether Washington would risk its own cities to defend them. In France, Germany, Poland, Japan, and South Korea, once-unthinkable conversations about independent nuclear capabilities are now part of serious policy debate.
The logic that kept nuclear proliferation in check for decades — extended deterrence backed by U.S. credibility — is under strain. As that confidence erodes, so too do the barriers that once discouraged nations from seeking their own weapons.
Experts warn that as many as 40 countries possess the technical capacity to develop nuclear arms. The remaining question is political will.
America’s Quiet Expansion
The United States, while publicly cautious in tone, is accelerating its own modernization.
Billions are being poured into upgrading warheads, bombers, and intercontinental missiles. Most notably, the Navy is preparing to increase the number of nuclear missiles carried aboard Ohio-class submarines — the most survivable and lethal component of the U.S. arsenal.
By reopening missile tubes previously disabled under New START, Washington could deploy hundreds of additional warheads without ever announcing a dramatic breakout. The move sends a signal of resolve — but also risks triggering symmetrical responses from rivals.
Arms control agreements once existed precisely to dampen such spirals. Without them, every action invites a counteraction.
A Dangerous Silence
What stands out most is not only the end of arms control, but the absence of public debate.
During the Cold War, nuclear strategy dominated presidential campaigns, cultural discourse, and national consciousness. Today, despite rising risks, the issue unfolds largely outside public scrutiny.
Former officials and strategists warn that the world is drifting into a new arms race — one shaped less by ideology than by mistrust, technology, and geopolitical fragmentation.
As one veteran nuclear adviser put it shortly before his death: the danger lies not in any single weapon, but in the sheer number of them — and in how quickly restraint can disappear once it is abandoned.
