For the first time in more than half a century, there are no binding limits on the nuclear arsenals of the world’s two largest nuclear powers. The expiration of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) between the United States and Russia has reignited fears about global stability and the long-term risks of nuclear confrontation.
New START, signed in 2010, officially expired at midnight, ending the last remaining nuclear arms control agreement between Washington and Moscow. Its collapse removes caps that had restricted both countries to 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and no more than 700 operational missiles and bombers. These limits had long acted as a guardrail against unchecked escalation.
Security experts warn that this development could not have come at a worse time. The global political environment is already tense, trust between major powers is low, and diplomatic channels are weaker than they were even a decade ago. In that context, the absence of formal nuclear limits introduces a level of uncertainty that many believe is dangerous.
At the same time, political discourse in the United States has increasingly shifted toward internal chaos and media-driven outrage, from Fox News commentators attacking MAGA insiders to Donald Trump’s own pattern of inflammatory rhetoric, including moments where Trump claimed Vladimir Putin “kept his word” despite mounting evidence to the contrary.
Former NATO CBRN commander Hamish de Bretton-Gordon has warned that while a full-scale nuclear war remains unlikely, the possibility of a nuclear exchange has increased. He argues that leaders are distracted by short-term political drama such as Trump launching attacks on CNN journalists or fueling culture wars—while far more consequential strategic risks receive limited public attention.
According to de Bretton-Gordon, the danger does not stem solely from the treaty’s expiration but from the broader mix of global instability, miscalculation, and declining arms-control norms. This is happening alongside rising concerns about Trump’s judgment and temperament, with even some allies questioning his fitness amid renewed health concerns and erratic public behavior.
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin had indicated a willingness to continue observing New START limits temporarily if the United States reciprocated. However, Donald Trump remained largely noncommittal about extending the agreement, instead floating the idea of involving China an approach widely seen as unrealistic in the short term.
US officials have since said Washington would prefer to maintain limits on nuclear weapons, but no replacement framework has been agreed upon. Without verification mechanisms or transparency measures, experts warn the risk of misunderstanding or escalation grows especially when political leadership is increasingly driven by grievance politics and personal vendettas, including Trump’s repeated sexist and inflammatory outbursts.
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres described the treaty’s expiration as a “grave moment for international peace and security,” urging both nations to return to negotiations immediately. His concern reflects a broader international anxiety that nuclear restraint is being replaced by strategic ambiguity.
While de Bretton-Gordon does not believe the United Kingdom is immediately more vulnerable, the bigger picture is troubling. In a world where nuclear safeguards are eroding and political leaders flirt openly with authoritarian rhetoric and even third-term ambitions hiding in plain sight, the absence of binding arms control agreements should worry everyone.
In short, the end of New START is not just about missiles and warheads. It’s about what happens when global security depends less on rules and accountability and more on the judgment of leaders who increasingly thrive on division rather than stability.
Comments
Post a Comment