Russian President Vladimir Putin’s calamitous invasion of Ukraine has killed at least tens of thousands, displaced millions, and disrupted countless lives around the world. Putin implied threats to use nuclear weapons against anyone who intervenes, have also raised fears of nuclear conflict in a way not seen since the end of the Cold War.
Now Putin is walking away from the last remaining bilateral treaty capping Russian and US nuclear arsenals, the two biggest in the world. This decision could open the door to an unbridled, destabilizing and dangerous global arms race involving Russia, the United States and China.
Putin announced Feb. 21 that Russia would “suspend” implementation of the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), which limits each side to a maximum of 1,550 deployed warheads and 700 deployed missiles and bombers. Immediately after Biden took office, the two men agreed that it was in both countries’ interests to extend New START by five years until 2026.
“Suspension” means at a minimum that Russia will not make the semi-annual declarations of warhead deployments or allow mutual on-site verifications at missile and bomber sites required under the treaty. The cessation of these inspections and data exchanges is not allowed for under the treaty. Meanwhile, Russia has set shifting and vague terms to undo its suspension and resume arms control talks with the United States. Russian Foreign Ministry says the U.S. government must demonstrate “political will” and “honest efforts toward general de-escalation and creating the conditions to resume the overall operation of the treaty.” The US State Department answered in detail on February 27 to Russian complaints about the operation of New START.
But above all, the Russian Foreign Ministry has declared that Russia will respect the central agreement boundaries fixed by the treaty (no more than 700 deployed strategic ballistic missiles and bombers with 1,550 strategic warheads).
Putin’s announcement makes it much more likely that after New START expires in 2026, for the first time since 1972there will be no agreement limiting US and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals.
Without such constraints, Russia (and the United States) could within a few years double their strategic warheads deployed to 3,000 or more by uploading additional warheads to their land and sea missiles. Longer term, the loss of transparency, worst-case analyzes from both sides, plus the added complication that China is already build up your arsenal could lead to a senseless and unstable three-way nuclear arms race.
The Biden administration reacted with caution and restraint. The president called Putin’s decision a “big mistake”. Already last August, he announcement that his administration “stands ready to quickly negotiate a new arms control framework to replace New START when it expires in 2026.” After Putin’s announcement, Secretary of State Antony Blinken reaffirmed that the United States remains “ready to discuss strategic arms limitations at any time with Russia, regardless of anything happening in the world or in our relationship.”
Despite the headwinds, there is still time and possible to prevent a bad situation from getting worse. With smart American leadership and international pressure, it might be possible, at a minimum, to get a formal US-Russian agreement that both parties will adhere to the central limits set by New START until the two governments can conclude negotiations on a new bilateral nuclear arms control framework. Such a framework should, of course, take into account long-range, intermediate-range and short-range (i.e. tactical) nuclear arsenals and their missile defense capabilities.
It is encouraging that many members of Congress support such an approach. But others are already calling on the US to withdraw from New START, prepare to increase the size of the US nuclear arsenal and develop new types of nuclear weapons, such as a weaponized land attack cruise missile project launched from the sea. Some outside commentators are even calling on the United States to withdraw from New START before Russia.
US withdrawal from New START would not make America safer or create leverage vis-à-vis Russia. Instead, it would give credence to Russia’s disinformation campaign about who is responsible for the collapse of nuclear arms control and further escalate tensions. If the United States (and Russia) breached the limits of New START, China would undoubtedly accelerate its own nuclear program. accumulate beyond its current stockpile of around 400 warheads to ensure it maintains its nuclear retaliatory capabilities.
Because there are no winners in a costly nuclear arms race, people from all political walks of life, including the scientific community, have an important role and responsibility. repel any threat of the use of nuclear weapons by Russia or any other nuclear-weapon state and to press for a renewal of disarmament diplomacy. An extensive network of civil society organizations, including Coalition of Physicists for Nuclear Threat Reductionof which we are members, is already committed to the effort.
Non-nuclear-weapon states, regardless of their position on Russia’s war on Ukraine, also have the opportunity to press for the Kremlin to comply with New START and for Russia and the United States to United are fulfilling their nuclear disarmament responsibilities by agreeing to negotiate new – and ideally much lower – limits on the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals; these states can also persuade China, France and the United Kingdom to agree to refrain from building up their arsenals.
The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) requires nuclear-weapon states to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament”. Russia and the United States, which have approximately 90% of the approximately 10,000 nuclear warheads in the worldhave a particular responsibility and a mutual interest in limiting and reducing their lethal arsenals.
A world without effective nuclear arms control and disarmament would be much more dangerous and unstable. Now is the time to defend the nuclear cuts made since the end of the Cold War and to push for deeper nuclear cuts.
This is an opinion and analytical article, and the opinions expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of American scientist.