logo
A new nuclear age is coming, but this time it's different

A new nuclear age is coming, but this time it's different

Russia Today7 days ago
The question of nuclear proliferation is no longer hypothetical. It is happening. The only uncertainty now is how quickly it will proceed. In the not-too-distant future, we may see 15 nuclear powers instead of today's nine. Yet there is little reason to believe this development will fundamentally upend international politics, or bring about global catastrophe.
The invention of nuclear weapons was a technological breakthrough that reshaped global affairs. More than anything else, nuclear weapons define the military hierarchy of states, creating a threat that no government can ignore.
Perhaps their most profound consequence is the emergence of states that are essentially immune to external aggression. This was never true in the long history of war. No matter how powerful a state was, a coalition of rivals could always defeat it. The great empires were vulnerable to invasion. The Enlightenment-era monarchies – including Russia – depended on a balance of power system where no single nation could dominate the rest.
But with nuclear weapons, that balance shifted. Two countries – Russia and the US – now possess such overwhelming destructive capability that neither can be seriously threatened, let alone defeated, even by a coalition. China, too, is gradually joining this exclusive tier, though its arsenal is still a fraction of Moscow's or Washington's.
In this sense, nuclear weapons have brought a strange kind of peace: Not from trust, but from terror. War between nuclear superpowers is not only unthinkable, it is politically irrational.
Becoming a nuclear superpower, however, is extremely expensive. Even China, with its vast resources, has only recently begun to approach the scale of Russian and American stockpiles. Few others can afford the same path.
Fortunately, most countries don't need to. Major regional powers like India, Pakistan, Brazil, Iran, Japan, and even smaller ones like Israel, do not seek military invincibility on a global scale. Their nuclear ambitions, where they exist, are regional in nature – aimed at deterring neighbors, not conquering continents. Their limited arsenals do not upset the global balance of power.
Nor do they need to. For decades, serious scholars – Western theorists as well as Russian strategists – have argued that limited nuclear proliferation may actually enhance international stability. The reasoning is simple: Nuclear weapons raise the cost of war. Nations become far more cautious when the price of aggression could be national annihilation.
We've seen this play out already. North Korea, with a modest nuclear arsenal, feels emboldened in its dealings with Washington. Iran, by contrast, delayed too long and was attacked by Israel and the US in June 2025. The lesson was clear: In today's world, non-nuclear states are far more vulnerable to attack.
This has exposed the weakness of the current non-proliferation regime. Countries like India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea have all violated it, yet none have been meaningfully punished. Iran tried to comply and paid the price. It's no wonder others are watching and drawing their own conclusions.
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan – each may be tempted to pursue nuclear weapons, either independently or with quiet American support. Washington has already shown it cares little about the long-term consequences for its East Asian allies. It is willing to provoke instability if it helps contain China.
In this context, a wave of new nuclear powers is not just likely – it is practically inevitable. But it will not mean the end of the world.
Why? Because even with more nuclear states, the true balance of power remains intact. No emerging nuclear country will soon reach the scale of Russia and the US. Most will build modest deterrents, enough to shield themselves from invasion but not to threaten global security. Their arsenals may be enough to inflict horrific damage on a rival – but not to destroy humanity.
A regional war – between India and Pakistan, Iran and Israel, or others – would be a tragedy. Millions could die. But the catastrophe would be geographically limited. These are not world-ending scenarios. And in cases such as these, the nuclear superpowers – Russia and the US – would likely act to impose peace before escalation spirals out of control.
Of course, this is hardly a utopia. But it is also not the apocalypse Western hawks love to predict. In fact, compared to the real nightmare – a direct nuclear conflict between Russia and the US – this multipolar nuclear world may be the lesser evil.
Proliferation may be regrettable. It may complicate diplomacy. But it is not madness. It is a rational response by sovereign states to a system where only nuclear-armed nations can truly secure their interests. The monopoly of power enjoyed by a handful of countries is eroding. That is not a failure of the system – it is the logical outcome of it.
The strategic architecture of the post-war world has long rested on a fiction – that non-proliferation is universal, and that the West can police it indefinitely. This fiction is now collapsing. Countries are learning that treaties mean little without enforcement – and that security cannot be outsourced.
In the long run, this will require a new approach. A world with 15 nuclear powers may not be ideal, but it is manageable – especially if the dominant players act with restraint and responsibility. Russia, as one of the original nuclear powers, understands this burden well. It will not be Moscow that upends this balance.
But the West, driven by arrogance and short-term calculations, may yet provoke a crisis it cannot control. Washington's recklessness in East Asia, its casual indifference to the risks it imposes on allies, and its determination to maintain strategic dominance at all costs – that is the real danger.
We are entering a new nuclear age. It will be more crowded, more complex, and more fragile. But it will not be ungovernable – so long as those with real power behave as custodians, not crusaders.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump says he will shorten Ukraine peace deadline
Trump says he will shorten Ukraine peace deadline

Russia Today

time40 minutes ago

  • Russia Today

Trump says he will shorten Ukraine peace deadline

US President Donald Trump has warned he will reduce the time frame he had set for Moscow and Kiev to settle the Ukraine conflict. He had previously demanded the sides reach an agreement in 50 days, threatening to impose additional sanctions against Russia otherwise. The set of punitive measures announced by Washington would involve secondary sanctions, including tariffs on countries and entities doing business with Russia. Trump's initial deadline was due to expire in early September. 'I'm going to reduce that 50 days that I gave him (Putin) to a lesser number, because I think I already know the answer what's going to happen,' Trump told journalists in Scotland ahead of a meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The American leader claimed he had been close to reaching a ceasefire deal on Ukraine conflict with Russian President Vladimir Putin five times. 'I've spoken to President Putin a lot, I've gotten along with him very well,' he said, while accusing Moscow of launching strikes against Ukrainian cities and stating that he was 'very disappointed' with the Russian leadership. Moscow has stated throughout the conflict that it is open for dialogue and could start negotiations without preconditions, as long as the situation on the ground is taken into account and the root causes of the conflict are addressed during the talks. It also said Trump's new sanctions threats serve primarily 'as signals to continue war' for Ukraine and called on Washington to put pressure on Kiev instead. Any new sanctions, including the secondary ones, would not affect Russia's policy as Moscow would 'continue to move along our independent, sovereign, and sustained path,' Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said in response to Trump's previous threats. The US president said earlier this week that he could potentially impose the announced sanctions before the previously declared deadline. DETAILS TO FOLLOW

US trade deal will fuel EU's ‘deindustrialization'
US trade deal will fuel EU's ‘deindustrialization'

Russia Today

timean hour ago

  • Russia Today

US trade deal will fuel EU's ‘deindustrialization'

The new US-EU trade agreement threatens to accelerate 'deindustrialization' in Europe by redirecting investment to the US and increasing the bloc's dependency on American energy exports, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. On Sunday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and US President Donald Trump finalized a controversial deal that allowed the EU and US to avert a full-scale trade war. Under the deal, the US has reduced its proposed 30% tariffs to a flat 15% on most European exports. The EU has committed to purchasing $750 billion worth of US energy, primarily liquefied natural gas and nuclear fuel, and agreed to invest around $600 billion into US industries. The bloc has also undertaken to increase imports of US-made weapons. Speaking at the 'Territory of Meanings' forum on Monday, Lavrov described the arrangement as 'clearly leading to further deindustrialization of Europe and capital flight.' He added that rising energy prices and investment outflows will strike a 'very hard blow' to European industrial and agricultural sectors. According to Lavrov, von der Leyen was apparently 'boasting' about the EU's willingness to carry additional costs. 'People like Ursula von der Leyen literally take pride in this path: yes, we will be forced to spend more money, yes, we will probably have fewer resources to address social problems, but we are obliged to defeat Russia.' He stressed that the trade deal is 'obviously damaging for the Old Continent – it doesn't even need to be analyzed.' Lavrov's stance was echoed by several EU politicians and the business community. Marine Le Pen, a key figure in France's right-wing National Rally party, denounced the agreement as a 'political, economic, and moral fiasco' detrimental to the EU's sovereignty. French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou concurred, calling it a 'dark day' for the EU. German business leaders also voiced alarm. Wolfgang Niedermark, a member of the executive board of the Federation of German Industries (BDI), said the EU had sent a 'fatal signal' by accepting high tariffs. 'Even a tariff rate of 15% will have immense negative effects on the export-oriented German industry,' he warned.

Trump ‘wiped the floor' with EU
Trump ‘wiped the floor' with EU

Russia Today

time2 hours ago

  • Russia Today

Trump ‘wiped the floor' with EU

The new trade agreement between the US and the EU is 'completely humiliating for the Europeans,' former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said. The deal, announced on Sunday by US President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, includes a requirement for EU member states to increase imports of American energy and defense products. It also imposes a blanket 15% tariff on EU exports to the US – terms accepted by Brussels to avoid even steeper trade penalties. In a social media post on Monday, Medvedev, who serves as deputy chair of the Russian Security Council, claimed that the terms of the deal meant Trump had 'wiped the floor with Europe.' 'One can only feel sorry for ordinary Europeans,' Medvedev wrote. He asserted that where Trump is seeking economic benefits for American businesses, EU leaders are motivated by an ideological anti-Russian sentiment, as the deal further cements Brussels' intention to terminate all purchases of Russian oil and gas. The Trump administration has used tariffs as a tool to confront what it considers unfair trade practices and chronic deficits in trade with key partners. In the absence of a deal, EU products could have faced tariffs as high as 50%. Last week, Brussels prepared a list of US goods it was ready to hit with retaliatory duties if negotiations collapsed. Medvedev and other senior Russian officials have repeatedly portrayed EU leaders as politically weak and overly compliant with Washington's agenda, often at the expense of their own economic interests. Russia has been especially critical of the EU's break from Russian energy supplies, a move initiated as part of sanctions over the Ukraine conflict. Moscow contends that the resulting shift to more expensive US liquefied natural gas has contributed to the deindustrialization of major European economies.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store