The world is on the brink of a terrifying possibility: the last remaining nuclear arms control treaty between the US and Russia is set to expire, and with it, the fragile balance that has prevented a catastrophic nuclear war for decades. This Thursday, the New START treaty will officially end, leaving us teetering on the edge of a new and dangerous arms race.
Signed in 2010, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) was a beacon of hope, capping the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads for both nations at 1,550. But it was more than just a numbers game; it established crucial transparency measures, including data sharing, notifications, and on-site inspections, fostering trust and reducing the risk of miscalculation. And this is the part most people miss: the treaty’s expiration marks the end of an era of arms control cooperation between Washington and Moscow that helped bring the Cold War to a close.
But here's where it gets controversial: While Pope Francis has urgently called for the treaty’s renewal, warning that the current global situation demands every effort to avoid a new arms race, US President Donald Trump has seemed less concerned. “If it expires, it expires,” he told the New York Times last month, adding, “We’ll just do a better agreement.” This cavalier attitude has sparked fierce debate among experts, with many arguing that the collapse of New START could accelerate an already underway arms race.
The stakes are higher than ever. Both the US and Russia are modernizing their nuclear forces and developing advanced weapons systems, from Russia’s Poseidon underwater nuclear torpedo to the US’s plans for a “Golden Dome” defense shield. Meanwhile, China’s rapidly expanding nuclear arsenal has led Washington to insist that any future treaty must include Beijing. Russia, on the other hand, argues that France and the UK—Europe’s nuclear powers—should also be at the table. This deadlock raises a critical question: Can the world afford to wait for a new agreement while nuclear capabilities continue to grow?
The expiration of New START follows a troubling trend. Key arms control treaties, such as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Agreement and the Open Skies Treaty, have already been abandoned. Britain’s former head of the armed forces, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, warned last year that the collapse of these frameworks is “one of the most dangerous aspects of our current global security.” And with more countries viewing nuclear weapons as a deterrent, the risk of proliferation is higher than ever.
Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at RUSI, warns that the expiration of New START is deeply concerning because both sides have incentives to expand their strategic capabilities. “The growing salience of nuclear weapons,” she notes, “only makes it harder to reach a new arms control treaty.” Yet, neither the US nor Russia seems in a hurry to negotiate, despite the issue being discussed during Trump’s meeting with Putin last year—with no results.
Here’s the uncomfortable truth: A new arms race is already underway, and the expiration of New START signals a more volatile, dangerous era. But is it too late to reverse course? What do you think? Should the US and Russia prioritize renewing the treaty, or is a broader agreement including China and other nuclear powers the only way forward? Let us know in the comments—this is a conversation the world can’t afford to ignore.
