With only one nuclear arms pact left between the U.S. and Russia, a new arms race is possible
But beginning in the 1970s, American and Soviet leaders started taking steps toward de-escalation, leading to a handful of critical treaties, including the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty that eliminated an entire class of nuclear-capable missiles.
The pact was terminated in 2019 after the U.S. withdrew. On Tuesday, Russia announced it was ending self-imposed restrictions on the deployment of the missiles covered in the agreement.
That leaves just one nuclear arms pact between Moscow and Washington still standing: New START, which experts say is on the ropes and set to expire in February in any case.
While the end of nuclear weapons agreements between the U.S. and Russia does not necessarily make nuclear war more likely, 'it certainly doesn't make it less likely,' said Alexander Bollfrass, an expert on nuclear arms control at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Moscow and Washington are still signatories to multilateral international treaties that aim to prevent the spread and use of nuclear weapons, but the increasingly erratic relationship between the countries, combined with the dwindling treaties, has many worried.
Survivors of the atomic bomb dropped 80 years ago Wednesday by the U.S. on the Japanese city of Hiroshima expressed frustration about the growing support of global leaders for nuclear weapons as a deterrence.
In 1986, the Soviet Union had more than 40,000 nuclear warheads, while the U.S. had more than 20,000, according to the Federation of American Scientists.
A series of arms control agreements sharply reduced those stockpiles.
The federation estimated in March that Russia has 5,459 deployed and non-deployed nuclear warheads, while the U.S. has 5,177. Together, that's about 87% of the world's nuclear weapons.
In May 1972 — a decade after the Cuban missile crisis — the U.S. and Soviet Union signed the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks I, or SALT I, which was the first treaty that placed limits on the number of missiles, bombers and submarines carrying nuclear weapons.
At the same time, they also signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, or ABM, putting restrictions on missile defense systems that protect against a nuclear strike.
Then, in 1987, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan inked the INF treaty, banning missiles with a range of 310 to 3,410 miles.
President Trump withdrew from the pact during his first term, citing Russian violations that Moscow denied. The White House also said it placed the U.S. at a strategic disadvantage to China and Iran, neither of which was party to the agreement and each of which it said had more than 1,000 INF-range missiles.
The Kremlin initially said it would abide by its provisions, but on Tuesday, it ended that pledge.
Even before that, Moscow test-fired its new intermediate-range Oreshnik hypersonic missile at Ukraine in November. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said those missiles will be deployed to Russia's neighbor and ally Belarus later this year.
Meanwhile, the START I nuclear arms reduction treaty signed in 1991 reduced the strategic arsenals of U.S. and Russian nuclear warheads, as well as missiles, bombers and submarines carrying them. It has since expired. Another treaty, START II, was signed but never entered into force.
In 2002, then-President George W. Bush withdrew from the ABM agreement after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks because of concerns that the agreement limited U.S. capabilities to counter attacks, including from countries such as Iran or North Korea.
Russia strongly opposed the move, fearing that it would allow the U.S. to develop a capability that would erode its nuclear deterrent.
The last remaining bilateral treaty — New START, signed in April 2010 — aimed to set limits on deployed nuclear weapons and launchers and enforce on-site inspections.
It, too, is 'functionally dead,' said Sidharth Kaushal, a senior fellow in military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute in London.
It expires on Feb. 5, and Russia already suspended its participation after its invasion of Ukraine, resulting in a halt of on-the-ground inspections of Russian nuclear sites. Moscow said, however, it would continue to abide by the pact's limits on its nuclear forces.
The INF and New START treaties, in particular, led to 'serious on-the-ground inspections' that lowered tensions in Europe, Bollfrass said.
Their end could rachet up tensions between the two Cold War adversaries, experts said.
But they also reflect a broader interest in conventionally armed intermediate-range missiles, the experts said, pointing to the planned U.S. deployment of such missiles to Europe and the Pacific, as well as Israel's and Iran's use of missiles during their recent war.
New bilateral agreements on nuclear weapons between the U.S. and Russia in the immediate future are 'highly unlikely' because the level of trust necessary to negotiate and follow through with an arms control agreement does not exist, Kaushal at RUSI said.
And the U.S. is increasingly looking at other threats. Both the Bush and Trump administrations withdrew from treaties with Russia partly by citing concerns that the agreements didn't place limits on other countries' build-up of nuclear weapons.
As China increasingly becomes a nuclear peer of the U.S. and Russia, it could drive a 'competitive spiral' in which Washington could develop more nuclear, as well as conventional, weapons to counter what it perceives as a threat from Beijing, Kaushal said.
Any increase in U.S. intermediate- or long-range weapons could, in turn, drive Russia to increase its own nuclear arsenal, he said.
But even as Cold War treaties end, Cold War thinking may endure.
The possibility of mutually assured destruction may still demand restraint, the experts said.
Burrows writes for the Associated Press.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Trump signs executive order cracking down on ‘debanking': ‘Incompatible with a free society'
President Trump signed an executive order Thursday aimed at preventing banks from refusing to offer financial services to people based on their political beliefs or lawful business activities – a practice known as 'debanking.' 'It is the policy of the United States that no American should be denied access to financial services because of their constitutionally or statutorily protected beliefs, affiliations, or political views, and to ensure that politicized or unlawful debanking is not used as a tool to inhibit such beliefs, affiliations, or political views,' Trump wrote in his order. 'Banking decisions must instead be made on the basis of individualized, objective, and risk-based analyses,' he added. 3 Banks that engaged in unlawful debanking may face fines and penalties under Trump's order. AP Earlier this week, Trump accused JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America of rejecting more than $1 billion of his deposits for political reasons. 'The banks discriminated against me very badly,' he told CNBC on Tuesday. Former Republican Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback recently alleged he was 'debanked' by JPMorgan over his conservative religious views – a claim the bank denied. Banks have also been accused of canceling accounts of customers engaged in cryptocurrency ventures and supporting conservative causes, such as Second Amendment activities. Trump noted that victims of debanking have 'suffered frozen payrolls, debt and crushing interest, and other significant harms to their livelihoods, reputations, and financial well-being.' 'Such practices are incompatible with a free society and the principle that the provision of banking services should be based on material, measurable, and justifiable risks,' the president continued, describing discriminatory debanking as 'unlawful.' 3 Major banking groups have endorsed Trump's order. Christopher Sadowski Trump's order directs banking regulators to remove reputational risk and other equivalent concepts from federal guidelines and instructs the Small Business Administration to require all financial institutions to make reasonable efforts to reinstate anyone who was unlawfully debanked. The president further ordered Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to develop a comprehensive strategy to combat debanking, through legislation or new regulations. Banks found to have engaged in discriminatory debanking may be subject to fines or other penalties from regulators, the order stated. 3 Trump accused Bank of America earlier this week of previously refusing his deposits. Getty Images Trump also directed banking regulators to review complaints and data related to debanking and refer potentially unlawful cases to the Justice Department. Major banking groups applauded Trump's executive action. 'Today's Executive Order helps ensure all consumers and businesses are treated fairly, a goal the nation's banks share with the Administration,' the Bank Policy Institute, American Bankers Association, Consumer Bankers Association and Financial Services Forum said in a joint statement. 'It's in banks' best interest to take deposits, lend to and support as many customers as possible,' the groups said. 'Unfortunately, regulatory overreach, supervisory discretion and a maze of obscure rules have stood in the way as the E.O. makes clear.' 'We thank the Administration for its efforts to protect access to banking and rein in runaway regulations and look forward to working with the White House, Congress and the agencies to create a national standard that advances these goals.'


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Douglas Murray: Mamdani smears Cuomo for allegedly talking to Trump —and yet associates himself with Mahmoud Khalil
'Democratic socialist' Zohran Mamdani is trying to smear one of his rivals by association. Yesterday the Democratic mayoral nominee claimed Wednesday that Andrew Cuomo recently spoke to President Trump by phone. Mamdani claimed that the two men had been 'conspiring about the fate of this city.' Advertisement For his part, former Gov. Cuomo has denied that he has even had a phone call with the president. But so what if he had? Is the president of the United States — a man who won the popular vote last November — so fringe that no candidate for mayor of New York should even speak with him? Advertisement That seems to be Mamdani's view. Keep away from fringe, wacko figures like, er, the president of this country. But if Mamdani is so keen on guilt by non-association, why not apply the same standard to him? To that end it would be good to know why Mamdani has been so happy to advocate for, associate with and even campaign alongside Mahmoud Khalil, formerly of Columbia University. 'A moral victory' Advertisement Readers will remember that Khalil was the former student who was weirdly living with his wife on student accommodation but whose main occupation seemed to be leading student protests at Columbia since October 2023. It is Khalil's group — Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD) — that declared the Oct. 7 massacre to be 'a moral, military and political victory' and declared that as an organization CUAD was 'fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization.' After discovering that Khalil — a foreign national — had lied on his visa application, praised terrorists and organized unrest in New York, ICE detained Khalil. He promptly became one of the great poster boys of the anti-American left. Advertisement They decided that nobody in America will be free until Mahmoud Khalil is free. Former Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil, accompanied by his wife Noor Abdalla, raises his hands as he arrives for a press conference outside the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York on June 22, 2025. AFP via Getty Images They decided that Khalil had done nothing wrong and was indeed a free-speech martyr. It's funny the people some folks are willing to make into folk heroes. Since his release from ICE detention, Khalil has been playing the same sob story as his wife did while he was in custody — claiming that America had been exceptionally mean to him. Apparently all he wanted to do was to study in the US. Something he appears to have spent almost zero time actually doing — preferring the path of agitation. 'Had to reach' Now, in an interview out this week, Khalil has once again exposed his real views and intent. In an interview with Ezra Klein of The New York Times, he talked about why he came to America in the first place. Advertisement He said that he was attracted to 'the quality of education' in this country, knew about Columbia because of its reputation in 'Palestinian circles' and was pleased to get a scholarship in 2018. Democratic New York City mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani during a news conference outside the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on Thursday, August 7, 2025, in New York, N.Y. James Keivom He didn't exactly reward this country for the honor and opportunities it gave him. In fact, he seems to have found one of the most radical campuses in America to be not radical enough for him. Advertisement 'The anti-Palestinian sentiment at Columbia was very obvious,' he now claims — a statement so deranged that you wonder whether Khalil knows the difference between up and down, earth and sky. But it is his statements about Hamas and the October 7th massacre that are most disgusting. Asked about his reaction to the events of that day, he said: 'It felt frightening that we had to reach this moment in the Palestinian struggle.' Apart from asking who the 'we' is in that sentence, I'd love to know why Khalil thinks that raping women and massacring young people at a dance party is some kind of inevitability. According to Khalil, 'We [again] couldn't avoid such a moment.' Advertisement 'Palestinians are here' Pushed lightly on why it was necessary to murder babies and kidnap pensioners, Khalil went on to explain that the problem was that the Israelis were trying to make a peace and normalization deal with the Saudis. Something that would have added to the extraordinary success of the Abraham Accords that had been signed with other Arab countries. Khalil thinks that the idea of 'normalization' is appalling. Advertisement In his view, the Palestinians 'are not being heard' and so the atrocities and barbarism of October 7th were an 'attempt to tell the world that Palestinians are here.' That's certainly one hell of a way to tell people. 'It was not inevitable' In case it isn't obvious, this is pure apologism for Hamas. Moderate, peace-loving Palestinian voices comprehensively refute Khalil's evil view. For instance, the proud American, Gazan-born Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, said yesterday, 'Khalil invoked the repetitive and tired idea that the October 7 attack by Hamas was an inevitability, when the truth is far more straightforward and needs to be told by Gazan voices and those who are impacted by the war.' 'October 7th was a choice, not an inevitability! A choice that two psychopaths made from within Hamas' military wing, Sinwar and Al-Deif. It was not inevitable that Gaza had to be the source of the worst single-day attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust.' He went on: 'Hamas squandered billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives for a fraudulent resistance narrative.' Unfortunately, Khalil is one of many arrivals in this country who have pushed that fraudulent narrative. The same people who claim, as Khalil went on to claim in his interview with Klein, that the bloody and murderous Second Intifada [2000-2005] was a mostly 'peaceful uprising.' So, Mr. Mamdani, if Gov. Cuomo is to be smeared for having the audacity to even be reported to have spoken to the US president, what are we to make of you knowingly and repeatedly associating with a terrorist mouthpiece? What are the voters of New York to think about a candidate for mayor who is so happy to advocate for terrorists for years and associate himself even now with someone who makes such excuses for terrorism? Any candidate for mayor who thinks President Trump is a more reprehensible figure than a Hamas apologist should be nowhere near the running of this city.


The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump to host leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia for peace ceremony
President Trump is set to host the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia at the White House on Friday to sign a peace deal that would potentially end decades of conflict between the two nations. Azerbaijan's President, Ilham Aliyev, and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan will meet with Trump separately and sign bilateral agreements with the United States to boost investments in their respective countries, Trump said. The three leaders will then gather for a peace ceremony. The extent of the agreement was not immediately clear, but if successful it could bring an end to decades of fighting over disputed regions between the two former Soviet republics. Multiple news outlets reported that the peace agreement was centered on establishing a transit corridor across the region. 'These two Nations have been at War for many years, resulting in the deaths of thousands of people. Many Leaders have tried to end the War, with no success, until now, thanks to 'TRUMP,'' Trump posted on Truth Social on Thursday night. 'I am very proud of these courageous Leaders for doing the right thing for the Great People of Armenia and Azerbaijan. It will be a Historic Day for Armenia, Azerbaijan, the United States, and, THE WORLD,' he added. Trump has touted his efforts to broker regional peace deals around the world during his second term so far, citing his role in easing tensions between India and Pakistan and the Congo and Rwanda. He also secured a pause in fighting between Israel and Iran. However, he has so far been unable to bring an end to the fighting in Ukraine, something he had pledged on the campaign trail to do before even taking office, and fighting has continued in Gaza, leading to a worsening humanitarian crisis.