The Unraveling of Nuclear Order: What Happens Now That New START Has Expired?
The expiration of New START marks a pivotal moment in global security, potentially ushering in a new era of nuclear uncertainty reminiscent of the Cold War’s most precarious days. For decades, arms control treaties provided a framework – albeit a sometimes fragile one – for managing the immense power held by the United States and Russia. Now, with that framework gone, the world faces a heightened risk of a renewed arms race, and a more volatile geopolitical landscape.
The Collapse of a System Built on Verification
New START wasn’t just about limiting numbers; it was about knowing the numbers. The treaty’s robust verification mechanisms – inspections, data exchanges, and notifications – built trust, however limited, between Washington and Moscow. Without these, both sides are left relying on intelligence gathering, which is inherently less reliable and more prone to misinterpretation. This lack of transparency dramatically increases the potential for miscalculation and escalation. As Rose Gottemoeller warned over a decade ago, the erosion of knowledge about each other’s forces breeds mistrust and fuels worst-case scenario planning.
Why China Complicates Everything
Former President Trump’s insistence on including China in any future arms control agreement, while seemingly logical given Beijing’s growing nuclear arsenal, is fraught with challenges. China has consistently maintained a policy of “no first use” and possesses a significantly smaller nuclear stockpile than the US and Russia. Forcing China into trilateral talks on the same terms as Washington and Moscow is unlikely to succeed. Experts like Pavel Podvig argue that pursuing a deal with China shouldn’t preclude maintaining existing limits with Russia. In fact, a US-Russia arms race could incentivize China to accelerate its own nuclear buildup, precisely the outcome the US aims to avoid.
Did you know? China is estimated to be rapidly expanding its nuclear capabilities, with projections indicating they could have 1,000 warheads by 2030, according to the Department of Defense.
The Risk of a Tripartite Arms Race
The expiration of New START doesn’t automatically trigger a massive build-up, but it removes a significant constraint. Without limits, both the US and Russia are free to increase their deployed warheads and delivery systems. This creates a dangerous dynamic where each side feels compelled to respond to perceived threats, leading to a spiral of escalation. A 2023 report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) highlighted a concerning trend of all nuclear-armed states increasing or maintaining their arsenals, signaling a broader shift away from disarmament.
Putin’s Offer and Trump’s Silence: A Missed Opportunity?
Vladimir Putin’s offer to voluntarily abide by New START’s provisions, while potentially a strategic maneuver, represented a low-hanging fruit for de-escalation. The fact that it was met with silence from the Trump administration – and no concrete follow-up – is deeply concerning to arms control experts. Accepting the offer wouldn’t have prevented the pursuit of a broader agreement with China, but it would have preserved a crucial layer of stability in the meantime.
Beyond the Numbers: The Erosion of Dialogue
The breakdown in arms control isn’t just about the numbers of warheads; it’s about the breakdown in communication. The war in Ukraine has further strained relations between Russia and the West, leading to the suspension of many verification measures under New START. Without regular dialogue and transparency, the risk of miscalculation increases exponentially. The lack of communication channels creates a breeding ground for suspicion and mistrust, making it harder to resolve crises and prevent escalation.
What’s the Path Forward?
Re-establishing a stable arms control regime will require a multi-faceted approach. This includes:
- Renewed Dialogue: Re-opening channels of communication between the US and Russia, even amidst geopolitical tensions, is paramount.
- Incremental Steps: Focusing on achievable, incremental steps – such as extending existing verification measures – can build trust and create momentum for more comprehensive agreements.
- Exploring New Frameworks: While a trilateral agreement involving China remains a long-term goal, exploring alternative frameworks – such as bilateral agreements with specific limitations – may be more realistic in the short term.
- Strengthening International Norms: Reinforcing the global norm against nuclear proliferation and promoting arms control treaties like the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
FAQ: New START and the Future of Nuclear Arms Control
- What was New START?
- The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, signed in 2010, limited the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads and delivery systems between the US and Russia.
- Why did New START expire?
- The treaty had a 10-year term, with a five-year extension option that was exercised once. Further extensions or a new agreement require negotiation.
- What are the risks of not having New START?
- Increased risk of a nuclear arms race, reduced transparency, and a higher potential for miscalculation and escalation.
- Is a new agreement likely?
- The prospects are uncertain. The current political climate and differing priorities make negotiations challenging, but the need for arms control remains critical.
Pro Tip: Stay informed about developments in nuclear arms control by following organizations like the Arms Control Association (https://www.armscontrol.org/) and the Federation of American Scientists (https://fas.org/).
The expiration of New START is a stark reminder of the fragility of peace and the enduring threat posed by nuclear weapons. The path forward will require courage, diplomacy, and a renewed commitment to arms control – not just from the US and Russia, but from the entire international community.
What are your thoughts on the future of nuclear arms control? Share your perspective in the comments below.
Worth a look