The success of the global nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament system has always relied on effective cooperation and dialogue between the two largest nuclear-weapon states, as stated by writer Darryl Kimball in his story "Breaking the Impasse on Nuclear Disarmament."
The two largest states in the world are a factor because of the simple issue of power. Large states can wield their power for peace or war, and it's all about how the respective states manage their power. But as their relations deteriorated over the past decade, Russia and the United States have dithered and delayed new disarmament talks and even failed to resolve disputes on successful arms-control agreements that helped ease tensions and reduce nuclear risks in the past.
Russia's illegal and brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine and Russian President Vladimir Putin's nuclear threat rhetoric have increased the danger of nuclear conflict. In addition, the war has become its excuse to abandon meaningful channels of diplomacy that could reduce nuclear risk.
In early 2023, Russia suspended implementing the last remaining Russian-US nuclear arms-control agreement, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, while publicly adhering to the treaty's central limits. New START will expire in February 2026.
In the summer of 2023, US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan proposed that the two sides start talks "without precondition" to establish a new nuclear arms control framework. He said: "It is in neither (Russian or US) interests to embark on an open-ended competition in strategic nuclear forces." The NSA also said the US is "prepared to stick to the central limits as long as Russia does". New START caps each side at no more than 1,550 treaty-accountable deployed nuclear warheads.
In December, Russia rejected the US proposal, saying it sees "no basis for such work" due to tensions over the war in Ukraine. At the same time, China is expanding and diversifying its relatively smaller arsenal, now estimated at 500 nuclear warheads, about 300 of which are on long-range systems. After agreeing to discuss nuclear risk reduction with U.S. officials in November, Chinese leaders have declined to meet again so far.
The White House has requested $69 billion to sustain and upgrade the massive US nuclear arsenal in fiscal year 2025, a 22 percent increase from the previous year. Nevertheless, some politicians and national security types are pushing to increase the cost and size of the nuclear arsenal even more by deploying 50 extra land-based missiles and uploading additional warheads on existing missiles. If Russia and the United States exceed New START limits, China might accelerate its own nuclear buildup. Such an action-reaction cycle would be madness.
Once nuclear-armed adversaries achieve a mutually assured-destruction capability, as China, Russia, and the United States have done, expanding their nuclear forces does not lead to more security but rather to an increasingly costly and unstable world. As US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in 2022, "Nuclear deterrence isn't just a numbers game. In fact, that sort of thinking can spur a dangerous arms race."
Halting this arms race is in everyone's interest. Kimball admits this will be tough in the current geopolitical environment. However, staying within New START's boundaries would be a start. We currently live in a world where lawlessness is the norm - Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Hamas' attack on Israel are an example. Of course, Israel's response has been controversial to say the least.
Things might change if we extend New START. Perhaps Russia and China will eventually act like normal nation-states, and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict can be solved with two productive states living side by side. If and when that happens, maybe we can move down the path of arms control. Let's hope it happens sooner rather than later.
Jason Sibert is the Lead Writer for the Peace Economy Project
