“The human race cannot coexist with the presence of nuclear weapons”
ICCO ITOH (Mayor of Nagasaki)
Waleed Feroz
The advent of nuclear weapons is revolutionary in a military sense and implicitly reshaped the future of warfare and human civilization. However, the exchange of nuclear weapons between two nuclear-armed forces would be disastrous. The catastrophe nuclear weapons could yield is comparatively larger than conventional warfare, as was experienced in the wake of the Second World War.
During the “Cold War”, two great powers, the USSR and the U.S., had been intensely involved in a tumultuous arms race competition and maintained the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) policy. Nevertheless, the presence of nuclear weapons wards off escalation of nuclear war, as both Moscow and Washington were more focused on engaging in implicit wars for many years. Still, at the zenith of the Cold War, the collective nuclear arsenals of both countries reached approximately 70000 warheads. Nonetheless, both states signed multilateral agreements to limit the size of their arsenals, such as SALT 1, SALT 2, START, NEW START, etc.
However, since 1970, both countries have not been in a legally binding agreement on arms reduction and disarmament. The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) also did not last long, and was terminated on Feb 4, 2026. This treaty was signed between President Barack Obama and President Dmitry Medvedev, and the purpose of this treaty was to limit both states to having 1550 nuclear warheads each. This encompasses 800 deployed and 700 non-deployed ICBMs, SLBMs, and Bombers. Furthermore, this also included transparency, official visits, notifications, and data exchange.
However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had proclaimed that President Putin had offered voluntarily to confine the size of deployed nuclear weapons; further, President Trump verified this claim. Until now, both states have not reached an agreement, which is concerning, since it could push both Moscow and Washington to an unprecedented arms race owing to technological advancement and modernization of nuclear weapons.
If an arms control agreement does not take place between Russia and the U.S. in the near future, it would signal to the rest of the world that arms competition has been started again and is not restricted by arms control treaties. Furthermore, Washington has been developing and modernizing its Missile Defense System (MDS), which has annoyed Moscow as well as its new economic and military rival, China. Therefore, Beijing and Moscow would expand their military spending on nuclear forces. In addition, Russia had tested two nuclear-powered and nuclear-capable weapons, and the New START was a kind of treaty that was the last guardrail limiting the size and visibility of both countries’ nuclear stockpiles.
Furthermore, NATO’s eastward expansion to Russia’s border is a threat to their sovereignty, and Putin has vehemently threatened NATO and the U.S. to employ nuclear weapons if Ukraine is provided with Tomahawk Missile. This missile could provide Kyiv with the ability to hit deeply inside Moscow. Similarly, in East Asia, the rapid modernization and development of nuclear arsenals by North Korea poses a significant threat to the existence of Japan and South Korea. Additionally, the nuclear capabilities and range of ICBMs of Pyongyang have reached to unparalleled levels that could possibly target Washington.
However, the revolutionizing growth of China’s economy and military is also one of the key challenges that poses a significant threat to global arms race competition. Recently, President Trump has asserted that the participation of China in arms control, along with Russia, is key to global peace; in contrast, President Xi Jinping had explicitly refused to engage in a formal agreement with the U.S., since Beijing believes that they have less nuclear weapons than those of Washington and Moscow.
Furthermore, China’s technological advancement, modernization of nuclear forces, and its aim to build up a “First Class” army are a threat to U.S. interests. According to some sources, China aims to invade Taiwan by 2027, and President Xi wants its land forces complemented by nuclear forces ready to reunify China with Taiwan.
Similarly, last year, long-standing rivals India and Pakistan came close to a nuclear war, which was ostensibly mediated by President Trump, who prevented both countries from going to war. Pakistan has long sought ICBMs to maintain its deterrence in South Asia, and analysts say that Pakistan has been developing ICBMs to maintain deterrence with Israel and the U.S. as well. Many other countries with robust latent power, such as Turkey, Poland and South Korea, are also trying to build their nuclear weapons to defend themselves against any aggression. The ongoing U.S-Israel war on Iran has also allured states to acquire nuclear weapons, since the presence of nuclear weapons assures a state’s survival by deterring an aggressor state from being aggressive, and achieving whatever objectives it has to achieve.
In light of the global nuclear arms race and the dream to control it, the termination of the bilateral arms control treaty between Russia and U.S pose significant challenges to the non-proliferation regimes. The two nuclear-armed states responsible for 90% of total warheads would render a wrong impression to the rest of the non-nuclear states, as they are not engaged in an agreement. This could prompt non-nuclear states to domestically develop their own WMDs. As analysts argue, it is the hypocrisy of the U.S., as it has been modernizing and developing nuclear weapons while restricting other states from doing so. However, J.J Mearsheimer has asserted “that’s what great powers do, they maximize their share of power, while capping others, not to imitate them”. Nonetheless, any agreement on arms control and non-proliferation between Moscow and Washington is desirable to maintain peace and stability in the world.
In addition, as an emerging military and economic power, the participation of China is imperative too, since Beijing has never become part of any bilateral or multilateral arms control treaty except the NPT. Since, the relationship between Beijing and Washington is gravely tense owing to multifarious reasons such as the Taiwan issue, trade tariffs, supporting Iran, and providing it with missile technology, this could potentially escalate to conventional war in general and nuclear war in particular. Therefore, the bilateral agreement between China and the U.S. is coveted for the peace and stability.
However, if China does not want to engage in a bilateral agreement, there is a potential for risk reduction measures through diplomacy and confidence building measures (CBMs), since China aims to increase its nuclear arsenal to 1000 by 2030, which currently stands at 600 warheads. This reflects China’s ambitions to secure a second-strike capability to ensure its survival in response to any miscalculated misadventure. Likewise, Washington has been heavily investing in its “Golden Dome” Missile Defense System.
Thus, fending off the lack of mistrust, uncertainty, and lack of clarity could only be done with non-binding agreements or through track 2.0 diplomacy, as the binding treaties have proven ineffective throughout human history of nuclear weapons.
The writer is an International Relations scholar and researcher with strong grounding in geopolitics, neo-imperialism, strategic studies, and regional security dynamics. He graduated with distinction in IR from SZABIST and is currently advancing his expertise through an MPhil in Strategic Studies at the National Defence University, Islamabad. He can be reached at [email protected]@gmail.com
