The U.S. and Russia find themselves in a new nuclear landscape without any treaty in place to limit their arms control. President Trump is advocating for a fresh approach to arms agreements, while Russian officials contend that the current U.S. stance makes reaching any new accord highly unlikely.
The previous arms control framework, New START, lapsed recently, meaning that neither country now has any legally enforceable restrictions or inspection protocols regarding their nuclear arsenals.
Trump criticized New START as an unsatisfactory agreement, alleging it had been “grossly violated” and suggested the U.S. ought to seek a new, modernized deal.
Russian officials, like Dmitry Medvedev from the Security Council, responded by asserting that the U.S. critique suggests that “a treaty under these conditions will never be concluded.” They argue that U.S. demands fail to account for the realities posed by other nuclear nations and advancements in weapons technology.
Recently, Thomas DiNanno, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, pointed out during a conference that New START’s limitations no longer resonate with today’s nuclear dynamics. He noted, “As of yesterday, New START and its core restrictions have expired.” He expressed doubt that extending the treaty would benefit either the U.S. or other global interests.
DiNanno emphasized the importance of addressing Russia’s tactical nuclear arsenal and China’s ongoing military expansion. He stated, “A bilateral treaty with only one nuclear-weapon state is completely inappropriate in 2026 and beyond.”
Moreover, the verification mechanisms outlined in New START had been largely inactive since 2023, when Russia halted on-site inspections and data sharing, although both nations agreed they would continue adhering to numerical limits.
Experts indicate that while China has increased its stockpile, it remains far behind the U.S. and Russia in total number of warheads and is unlikely to accept restrictions while furthering its own military capabilities.
Current estimates suggest that both the U.S. and Russia own roughly 4,000 nuclear warheads each, with about 1,700 actively deployed, while China’s arsenal could reach nearly 1,000 by 2030.
While New START had its flaws, its expiration has removed a crucial stabilizing factor, according to Lynn Rusten, a former U.S. arms control official. She noted, “We lost something. It would have been nice to continue this as a basis for negotiating a better deal and for stabilization.” With rising nuclear risks, experts have raised concerns highlighted by the recent adjustment of the Doomsday Clock to just 85 seconds to midnight, indicating an escalated threat of global catastrophe.
Rusten pointed out that the more immediate worry isn’t necessarily the rapid introduction of new weapons systems but rather how many warheads can be allocated to existing delivery methods. “Both countries have the ability to increase the number of warheads deployed on existing strategic transport vehicles,” she pointed out. “It will take time, but we can add hundreds of people if we want to.”
Additionally, Russia has developed unconventional delivery systems untouched by New START’s limitations. These include the nuclear-powered cruise missile called Burevestnik and the underwater torpedo Poseidon, which are marketed to evade current missile defenses and reach intercontinental targets.
As discussions about arms control advance, Washington emphasizes the inclusion of China in any future agreements—a proposition that Russia opposes, asserting that U.S. allies Britain and France should likewise be factored in, a stance the U.S. has consistently rejected.
Experts warn that tactical nuclear weapons remain a significant gap in nuclear arms control conversations. These battlefield-oriented, short-range nuclear weapons are thought to be in greater supply with Russia, which has never faced binding limitations on their numbers. Conversely, the U.S. has considerably reduced its tactical nuclear capabilities since the Cold War, while Russia has retained and modernized theirs, considering them vital to countering NATO’s conventional military strength.
Experts highlight the escalating risks tied to tactical nuclear weapons, given their smaller size and flexible usage, which can complicate attempts to reduce tensions and avoid the escalation of conflicts into broader nuclear exchanges.
