Online Reporter
Gibson Nyikadzino-Zimpapers Politics Hub
THE Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 brought the then Soviet Union and the United States close to the brink of nuclear confrontation before the two countries finally used diplomacy to douse the flames of annihilation. A decade later, the two nuclear superpowers came up with the first agreement on nuclear weapons control.
In the post-Cold War environment, a binding treaty between Russia and the United States on cooperation to reduce each country’s nuclear weapons expired this month, on February 5.
The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) was signed on April 8, 2010, in Prague by Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev and his United States counterpart, Barack Obama. It entered into force on February 5, 2011.
Many reports in defence and strategic studies reveal that at the moment, Russia has 5 459 nuclear warheads, while the United States has 5 177.
The third country, which is also an important dynamic in addressing this, is China, which is reported to have between 600 and 700 nuclear warheads.
The New START treaty had three main provisions.
It put a limit of 1 550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads placed on missiles or bombers for each side; put a limit of 700 on the number of missiles and bombers capable of carrying nuclear warheads ready for deployment; and it put a cap of 800 on other missiles, bombers and launchers in reserve which could be brought into use.
This last agreement, which was renewed in 2021, has been allowed to lapse without a new one to replace it. Its non-renewal means there are dangerous and uncertain phases the world is moving through.
Firstly, this means there are now no legally binding limits on the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals for the first time in more than 50 years, removing all assurances of peace.
Secondly, it also means nations can knowingly move towards nuclear Armageddon as great powers are now jostling more openly, slowly collapsing nuclear stability. The other danger is that in the absence of guardrails, every nuclear-armed state will start to build up or modernise its arsenal, leading to an unconstrained arms race.
However, in this interregnum, there will be encouraging hope if both Russia and the United States begin looking for a successor agreement.
A threat is building up
A nuclear arms race is an anticipated danger, though people should understand that it will not likely begin tomorrow. Still, UN Secretary General Antonio Gutierrez said that this is the highest risk of nuclear conflict for the world since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin last year said his country was willing to extend the New START treaty while a new one could be potentially negotiated.
The Russian position has been clear. However, nuclear hawks in Washington are thinking to the contrary.
United States President Donald Trump has spoken on a few occasions about his belief that his country should pursue de-nuclearisation, that it should have smaller arsenals and a smaller nuclear budget.
While President Trump may be considered sincere, there are a lot of things happening in the United States to be skeptical about when it comes to commitment to cut nuclear arms.
The political pressure in the United States has been immense since January 20, 2025. Nuclear weapons and the defence industry in general are big business, and they are also big supporters of the Trump administration.
Secondly, the Heritage Foundation, which has designed President Trump’s “authoritarian project”, is pushing in a big way for an arms build-up on the nuclear side. Third, the US has not done anything specific other than make statements to pursue arms control.
This terrifying threat of silence on the required action to address nuclear proliferation and arms race means that wars will end up nuclear and rarely in human history has a weapon sat unused in arsenals.
The last time nuclear weapons were used, 80 years ago, they killed an estimated 210 000 people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
With modern technologies, this could be worse!
For all nuclear states
Reports in Washington indicate that the US wants China to be part of future discussions and treaties on nuclear control and non-proliferation. However, with China in the matrix, the result is likely to be a three-sided nuclear competition, far more complex than the bipolar standoff experienced during the Cold War.
While estimates suggest that China has over 600 nuclear warheads, and is projected to reach 1 000 by 2030, it would be damaging to its security, defense and geopolitical interests if it accepts entering into a treaty with the United States and Russia.
China, from its defense and military research, is developing a complete nuclear triad, which includes land-based missiles, ballistic missile submarines and air-launched weapons, while also moving towards higher alert levels.
This capability includes the potential for launch on warning, allowing them to strike while an adversary’s missiles are still in flight.
It will only make sense for China to engage in serious dialogue over nuclear weapons non-proliferation and arms control with other nuclear superpowers when its arsenal is more comparable to that of Russia and the United States.
This also means in the demand to stop the arms race, it must not only be about China, Russia and the United States, but all nuclear-armed states.
Britain, France, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea must also be involved not only in nuclear arms control, reductions and restraints, but to maintaining security and prohibitions that would not threaten the world with nuclear weapons or being used on them.
Non-nuclear states
At least nine nuclear-armed states are capable of obliterating the whole world with their nuclear weapons. This means all the non-nuclear weapon states, who are just as much at risk of destruction in case of nuclear war, must raise the profile of this issue.
As it stands, no other world leader can sit down with Presidents Trump or Putin or Xi and talk about nuclear issues because there are too many other issues to talk about, which non-nuclear states are more concerned about.
No leader should, therefore, in this context, make a conclusion that they can do whatever they want without regard to the world.
If non-nuclear states do not show an interest in this matter at a political level, then nuclear weapon or nuclear armed states will continue towards potentially a nine-way arms race that will be more expensive and more dangerous than what happened in the Cold War.
A bipolar nuclear world was dangerous, but legible.
A tripolar or multipolar one is not.
For feedback: [email protected]
