For more than a decade, the five nuclear-armed states recognized under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty have failed to engage in constructive nuclear disarmament and risk-reduction diplomacy, as the Arms Control Association's Darryl Kimball stated in his story "Forging New Pathways for Disarmament Diplomacy".
Instead, the world's powers spend tens of billions of dollars annually to modernize, upgrade, and, in some cases, expand their deadly arsenals. To return to the progress made in the latter part of the Cold War and the post-Cold War years, leaders in Beijing, Moscow, and Washington need to use creative approaches to put new constraints on a dangerous arms race in that everyone loses.
The 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty will expire in 2026; Russian President Vladimir Putin has refused to engage with the Biden administration on its 2023 offer to discuss "without precondition" a new nuclear arms control framework to prevent an unconstrained nuclear arms race. Putin said that such a dialogue would not be fruitful if the US continues to support Ukraine as it defends itself against Russian aggression.
At the same time, China is building up its smaller but deadly nuclear force, now estimated to consist of some 310 warheads on long-range missiles, with perhaps 500 missiles in total. Unfortunately, China's leaders have also rejected US offers for follow-up talks on nuclear risk reduction and arms control issues, citing ongoing US arms sales to Taiwan.
If Russia and the US were to exceed the New START limits, it would upset the power balance and strain the already expensive US nuclear modernization program. In turn, this could trigger China to hasten its nuclear buildup. Such a dangerous cycle of action and reaction would be nothing short of madness.
Kimball's story asked if we could do things differently and offered suggestions. First, in the coming weeks, President Joe Biden and whoever is the next president-elect should reaffirm our support for negotiating a new nuclear arms control framework with Russia. Because such a deal would be difficult to hammer out and take time, the president should propose that Washington and Moscow conclude a simple, bilateral understanding promising that neither side shall increase the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads beyond the New START limits. This would remain in force until they can conclude a more comprehensive, durable framework to limit and reduce their deadly nuclear arsenals.
Kimball sees New START as a beginning point in a new round of arms control: "If Russia and the United States agree to cap their strategically deployed nuclear arsenals and work to negotiate a new nuclear arms reduction framework, Washington, along with leading non-nuclear-weapon states, should call on China, France, and the United Kingdom to freeze the overall size of their nuclear arsenals and negotiate a ban on fissile material production for weapons. Second, if China continues to decline talks with Washington on nuclear matters, it has an even greater responsibility to elevate the underperforming P5 consultation process, the dialogue on nuclear risk reduction involving the NPT's five nuclear-weapon states, that has been underway since 2010."
Kimball suggested that senior US diplomats clarify that they will not seek and will not pursue an increase in the size or diversity of the US nuclear arsenal if Russia continues to respect the New START ceilings, and China does not expand its strategic nuclear arsenal significantly. China should explain what is driving its buildup and clarify its nuclear modernization plans. Such an approach would help Beijing avoid worst-case assumptions about its intentions and the potential for a three-way arms race.
In addition, leading non-nuclear-weapon states need to press the US and Russia to engage in nuclear arms control and push China to halt its nuclear buildup, Kimball said. They seriously should consider launching a new initiative that would lead to a series of high-level nuclear disarmament summits involving a group of 20 to 30 leaders from nuclear- and non-nuclear-weapon states.
Kimball's suggestions are relevant. However, his story doesn't deal with the geopolitical tensions tearing the world apart in a Cold War that pits the China/Russia orbit against the American orbit or the role of authoritarianism in this struggle. The illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia and China's possible invasion by Taiwan add fuel to the fire. Hopefully, despite all that's shredding the concept of international law for right now, we can bridge a few divides, especially about nuclear arms control, and move even further when tensions cool.
Jason Sibert is the Lead Writer of the Peace Economy Project
