Nuclear Weapons Rising Again on the Agenda

Strategic nuclear weapons are making a comeback, for better or worse. It’s been 35 years since the Cold War ended, yet many Americans seem to have little grasp of these weapons capable of obliterating society. Stanley Kubrick’s classic film, Doctor Strangelove, satirized the idea of mutually assured destruction, highlighting a fictional doomsday device that could end the world.

The Cold War era brings to mind the image of “two scorpions in a bottle,” a term that captures how the U.S. and the Soviet Union could both harm each other. Now, decades later, it’s not just two scorpions. China has entered the mix, intensifying the pursuit of strategic nuclear capabilities.

Even if these nations aren’t in direct confrontation, they’re all connected in this high-stakes game. Other nuclear powers like Britain, France, North Korea, Israel, India, and Pakistan further complicate the landscape, with countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia hanging around the edges.

These nuclear issues are intensifying with the looming expiration of the New START Treaty in January and President Trump’s statements suggesting the U.S. may restart nuclear testing. The treaty limits both the U.S. and Russia to 1,550 deployed warheads and control over launchers, but there’s talk from Putin about extending those limitations.

Trump’s comments have stirred confusion in the arms control arena. Is he referring to detonating existing warheads or conducting non-critical experiments? Even exploratory tests seem risky and largely unnecessary, according to experts.

To complicate matters, in reaction to Trump’s pronouncements, Putin has been actively holding press conferences in the U.S., asserting Russia’s measures to defend against missile threats, including the development of Skyfall and Poseidon missiles.

Skyfall is a nuclear-powered cruise missile with expansive range capabilities. In contrast, Poseidon is an underwater torpedo, also nuclear-powered, capable of traveling long distances and delivering catastrophic explosives.

The potential destruction from a Poseidon attack could be staggering, possibly with a force that dwarfs the bombs dropped on Japan during World War II. Even multiple strikes could cripple the American economy.

What makes this strategic balance even more precarious is the introduction of advanced conventional weaponry—like cruise missiles and long-range bombs—that can strike with precision. These modern armaments were excluded from past arms control discussions, especially after the U.S. walked away from the anti-ballistic missile treaty in 2001.

Moreover, the U.S. seems to have lost significant expertise in nuclear arms control as many who were once deeply involved have moved on or are no longer prioritized in government discussions. The current leaders in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and White House seem less focused on strategic arms issues.

As for China, they have been hesitant to engage in arms control negotiations, likely waiting until their own nuclear capabilities reach a more formidable point. This leaves leaders pondering: what can they realistically agree on to prevent nuclear war?

Engagement with China must continue, which might involve establishing confidence-building measures, like mutual testing agreements for safety. Discussions between military officials could be helpful, but with Russia’s actions in Ukraine, it’s uncertain who might be willing to explore these options.

The most immediate step is maintaining a ban on kinetic nuclear tests, whether underground, on the surface, or in the air. Ignoring this could trigger an unwanted arms race—something that should be avoided at all costs.