Listen to the article
For the first time in decades, the world’s two largest nuclear superpowers are operating without treaty constraints on their arsenals. The New START agreement between the United States and Russia expired on Thursday, removing the last framework governing nuclear weapons between the two nations.
The treaty’s lapse eliminates crucial safeguards that had been in place for years, including limits on deployable nuclear weapons and mandatory notification requirements when nuclear weapons are relocated. The expiration creates a potentially destabilizing situation in global security affairs, as both countries are now free to expand their arsenals without oversight.
The scale of what’s now unconstrained is staggering. According to recent analysis from the Federation of American Scientists, there are more than 12,200 nuclear weapons globally, with the United States and Russia accounting for approximately 10,636 of those weapons—nearly 90 percent of the world’s nuclear arsenal.
Without New START’s verification protocols, neither country can easily monitor the other’s nuclear activities. This lack of transparency could foster mistrust and potentially trigger a new arms race reminiscent of the Cold War era, when both superpowers rapidly expanded their nuclear capabilities.
President Donald Trump addressed the treaty’s expiration on his social media platform Truth Social, arguing against simple extension of what he called “a badly negotiated deal” that was “being grossly violated.” Instead, Trump proposed that nuclear experts should work toward “a new, improved and modernized Treaty that can last long into the future.”
Trump has consistently advocated for including China in any new nuclear arms agreement with Russia. His administration has pointed to Beijing’s rapidly growing nuclear arsenal—now the world’s third largest—as justification for a more comprehensive approach to arms control that includes multiple nuclear powers.
Nuclear security experts have expressed concern about the treaty’s expiration creating a dangerous vacuum in arms control. Without verification measures, countries may make worst-case assumptions about their adversaries’ capabilities, potentially leading to overbuilding and increased military spending.
The New START treaty, which took effect in 2011, limited the United States and Russia to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads each and established a rigorous inspection regime. The agreement was the successor to multiple bilateral treaties dating back to the 1970s, when the two superpowers first began formal efforts to control the nuclear arms race.
Arms control advocates warn that without treaty constraints, both nations may accelerate modernization of their nuclear forces. Russia has already been developing new nuclear delivery systems, including hypersonic weapons and nuclear-powered cruise missiles. Meanwhile, the United States continues its own multi-decade nuclear modernization program, estimated to cost over $1.5 trillion.
The treaty’s expiration comes at a time of heightened global tensions. Relations between Washington and Moscow have deteriorated significantly in recent years due to conflicts in Ukraine, allegations of election interference, and other disputes. This strained relationship makes negotiating a replacement treaty particularly challenging.
Other nuclear-armed nations, including China, France, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, remain outside any binding nuclear limitations treaty. This raises questions about whether the bilateral U.S.-Russia framework that dominated nuclear arms control for decades remains sufficient for today’s multipolar nuclear world.
As the international community navigates this new era of unconstrained nuclear competition, diplomats and security experts emphasize the continuing importance of dialogue, transparency, and eventually establishing new frameworks to prevent a dangerous and costly arms race.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
16 Comments
This is a concerning development for global security. Without the constraints of the New START treaty, the world’s top nuclear powers could rapidly expand their arsenals, potentially destabilizing the strategic balance. Transparency and trust-building measures will be critical going forward.
I agree, the lack of oversight could lead to a dangerous new arms race. Diplomacy and cooperation will be needed to prevent a return to the tensions of the Cold War era.
The expiration of New START is a worrying development. Without limits and oversight, the risk of an uncontrolled nuclear arms race increases. I hope the international community can come together to find a new framework to regulate and constrain these deadly weapons.
Agreed. Diplomatic efforts to establish new nuclear arms control agreements should be a top priority to enhance global security and stability.
This is a complex and concerning situation. On one hand, the US and Russia may feel less constrained in modernizing and upgrading their nuclear forces. But on the other, the lack of transparency and verification could increase instability and mistrust. A return to robust arms control agreements should be a priority.
The expiration of New START is a setback for nuclear nonproliferation efforts. Without limits and transparency, the risk of a new arms race between the US and Russia is heightened. Reestablishing control and verification mechanisms should be a top priority for the international community.
It’s worrying to see the US and Russia operate without any limits on their nuclear stockpiles. This could spark a dangerous nuclear buildup and heighten geopolitical tensions. I hope the international community can work to establish new frameworks to regulate and constrain these weapons.
Absolutely. New diplomatic efforts are clearly needed to re-establish some guardrails around nuclear weapons. Unchecked proliferation is a grave threat to global stability and security.
This is a worrying development that could have serious implications for global security. The lack of constraints on the US and Russian nuclear arsenals is deeply concerning and could trigger a dangerous new arms race. Urgent diplomatic efforts are needed to establish a new framework for nuclear arms control and transparency.
I agree completely. The stakes are high, and a new arms control agreement must be a top priority for world leaders. Failure to act could have catastrophic consequences.
This is a concerning development that highlights the fragility of the current global nuclear order. The lack of constraints and verification could embolden the US and Russia to rapidly expand their arsenals, with potentially grave consequences. Reviving arms control negotiations should be an urgent priority.
The expiration of New START is a troubling step backwards for nuclear nonproliferation efforts. Without the treaty’s limits and verification mechanisms, the risk of a new arms race and increased nuclear tensions is elevated. I hope the international community can work quickly to establish a new framework to regulate these weapons.
Absolutely. Robust arms control agreements are essential for maintaining global stability and security in the nuclear age. Restoring transparency and predictability should be a key focus for diplomats.
This is a worrying development that could undermine decades of progress in nuclear arms control. Without the constraints of New START, the US and Russia may feel empowered to rapidly build up their arsenals, potentially triggering a new Cold War-style arms race. Reviving diplomatic efforts to establish a new framework is critical.
The expiration of the New START treaty is concerning, as it removes crucial limits and verification mechanisms that have helped regulate the US and Russian nuclear arsenals. This could lead to an unchecked arms buildup and heighten the risk of miscalculation and conflict. Negotiating a new agreement should be an urgent priority for global leaders.
I agree. Establishing robust, verifiable arms control agreements is essential for maintaining strategic stability and reducing the threat of nuclear war. Diplomacy will be key to finding a new framework that all parties can accept.