Implications of Nuclear Treaty Expiration for Global Arms Control

Table of Contents

The expiration of the New START treaty marks a critical juncture in international relations, particularly in the realm of nuclear arms control. This treaty, effective since 2010, was the last formal agreement between the United States and Russia designed to limit their nuclear arsenals. As of February 5, 2026, both countries are no longer bound by any legal constraints regarding the number of nuclear weapons they can deploy, raising serious concerns among experts and policymakers.

This development signifies a substantial shift from more than five decades of efforts to regulate nuclear weapons, which began with treaties in the early 1970s. With the end of this pivotal agreement, analysts are questioning whether a new nuclear arms race is imminent.

The end of an era for arms control

The New START treaty had established limits on the number of deployed nuclear warheads, capping each nation at 1,550 warheads. It also included provisions for intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missile launchers. Its expiration creates a vacuum that could lead to unchecked nuclear buildup and rising tensions between the two nations.

Consequences of expired agreements

Experts such as Thomas Countryman, a former U.S. diplomat, express deep concern about the current nuclear landscape. He emphasizes that the risk of nuclear conflict is at its highest since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Without a treaty, both nations may feel incentivized to expand their arsenals without restrictions, which could have severe consequences for global security.

This absence of a formal agreement may also embolden other nuclear powers, especially China, which is rapidly expanding its arsenal. The Pentagon estimates that China’s nuclear warheads could increase from approximately 600 to over 1,000 by 2030. This significant growth complicates U.S.-Russia negotiations, as any future arms control discussions will need to incorporate China to be effective.

Negotiation challenges ahead

In response to the treaty’s expiration, U.S. President Donald Trump has expressed interest in negotiating a new, more comprehensive arms reduction deal that would include China. However, this ambition is met with skepticism due to the complex geopolitical landscape and China’s historical reluctance to engage in arms limitation discussions.

Expert opinions on future agreements

Rose Gottemoeller, the chief negotiator of New START during the Obama administration, underscores the necessity for a modernized treaty, emphasizing the importance of addressing China’s nuclear growth. She remarks that while a one-year extension of the New START treaty could have provided temporary relief, it would not have adequately addressed the challenges posed by China’s nuclear ambitions.

With the Russian government indicating its unwillingness to extend treaty terms without substantial concessions, the path to a new agreement appears fraught with challenges. Dmitry Peskov, spokesperson for the Kremlin, stated that future developments will heavily depend on the evolving political climate, reiterating Russia’s commitment to safeguarding its national interests in nuclear strategy.

The future of nuclear stability

As the world enters this unregulated phase, analysts like Jim Walsh warn that the lack of restraints on nuclear arsenals could lead to heightened instability. He points out that while dismantling treaties is relatively straightforward, establishing new agreements is a lengthy process that often extends over several years. The immediate future remains uncertain, with fears that the fragile peace characterizing post-Cold War nuclear politics may be deteriorating.

Additionally, the absence of a verification mechanism—crucial for ensuring compliance—exacerbates these concerns. With inspections under the New START treaty no longer occurring, both nations may lack transparency regarding each other’s nuclear activities, further increasing the risk of misunderstanding and miscalculation.