
With only one nuclear arms pact left between the U.S. and Russia, a new arms race is possible
For decades, the threat of nuclear conflict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union hung over humanity — and occasionally the superpowers edged toward the brink, as with the Cuban missile crisis.
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.
U.S. and Russia have far fewer warheads than decades ago
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 2025 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.
Washington and Moscow have signed a series of key treaties
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 U.S. President Ronald Reagan inked the INF treaty, banning missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometres (310 to 3,410 miles).
U.S. President Donald 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-U.S. 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, 2026, 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.
Russia and the U.S. aren't the only players
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.
___
The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Outrider Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Emma Burrows, The Associated Press
Hashtags

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


CTV News
4 hours ago
- CTV News
‘It only works if Trump is tough on Russia': Former Ambassador Kinsman on Ukraine peace talks
Former Canadian Ambassador to Russia Jeremy Kinsman weighs in on U.S.-Russia meet, as European leaders rally behind Ukraine in new joint statement.


CBC
4 hours ago
- CBC
Americans, Canadians meet at International Peace Garden for 'handshake across the border'
Canadians and Americans came together on Saturday to shake hands, share perspectives and attempt to show that the two nations remain good neighbours and friends despite political tensions. "What we see in the news doesn't reflect what we see on the ground," Jeoffrey Smith of Santa Rosa, California said on Saturday. "We really are peace-loving people, and we love our neighbours, we love Canadians." Smith was one of the more than one hundred Canadians and Americans who showed up on both sides of the border at the International Peace Garden on Saturday, for what was dubbed 'Handshake Across the Border.' The event gave Canadians and Americans the chance to shake hands directly across the border at the Peace Garden, located adjacent to the International Peace Garden Border Crossing between Manitoba and North Dakota, south of Boissevain. According to their website, the garden, which was established in 1932 is a "celebration of peace, and a "living monument to the ideals of friendship and cooperation among nations." Smith, who was crossing the border this week back to the U.S. after spending time with family in Winnipeg, said for him the handshake symbolized the love that he said many Americans have for Canadians, even as U.S. president Donald Trump continues to impose tariffs on Canadian goods and make comments about Canada becoming a 51st state. "There's so much animosity going on between our two countries, we want to demonstrate we love our neighbours, and we're all together on this planet," Smith said. Tim Chapman, CEO of the International Peace Garden, said the handshake was organized as part of the garden's annual Summer Floral Celebration on Saturday, because they wanted to find a way to show Canadians and Americans meeting and embracing. "We're just trying to get as many Americans and Canadians here today as possible, get some awesome drone shots and photography of Americans and Canadians doing what the garden stands for," Chapman said. "Coming together and appreciating each other, and really showing that this cross border friendship is as important as ever." He added he hopes the event can show the importance of people meeting face-to-face, rather than simply debating or arguing online. "It's one thing to see what we do on TV and in social media, it's another thing to get in front of people and remember how valuable interpersonal, in-person relationships are." Alison Bjornseth, who lives on a farm in Bottineau County in North Dakota, not far from the border, said she came to Wednesday's handshake because she values the friendships she has made with Canadians over the years. "We have a lot of friends in Canada, and they've been very discouraged lately, and so we're trying to do what we can to support, and to show that we are friends," she said. "We're going to continue to be friends with our Canadian buddies.


CTV News
8 hours ago
- CTV News
Hundreds cheer Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego as Democrats take offensive against Trump's tax bill
DAVENPORT, Iowa — Hundreds of people cheered Sen. Ruben Gallego at a town hall meeting in eastern Iowa Saturday as the first-term Arizona Democrat assailed the massive, Republican-backed tax bill signed by U.S. President Donald Trump as likely to make 'America poorer and sicker.' Gallego's upbeat event struck the opposite tone from Rep. Mike Flood's town hall meeting earlier in the week, when an even bigger crowd jeered the Nebraska Republican for most of a 90-minute event in his state to promote the bill. Democrats, searching for months after last year's election defeat for footing in opposing the aggressive tone struck by Trump in his second term in the White House, have gone on the offensive this month, still united in their frustration with Trump but suddenly energized in full-throated opposition to his signature legislation. 'I think this bill is helping Democrats see clearly what's at stake with the future of protections for so many regular Americans,' said Pete Wernimont of Waterloo, who drove 140 miles (225 kilometers) to see Gallego. 'I just hope they are there when it really matters a year from now.' While some Republicans in safe Republican districts are braving crowds to sell Trump's law, most in Congress are heeding GOP leaders' suggestion to keep lower public profiles, especially noteworthy during the August recess following closely on Trump's signing of the tax cut and spending reduction bill last month. Democratic activists are rallying to point out what they see as the measure's political liabilities for Republicans trying to hold their narrow majorities in Congress in next year's midterm elections. 'This is the galvanizing moment that's happening because Democrats now understand, we're the people that fight for the middle class and the working class of America,' Gallego told reporters before the event Saturday. 'This is a clarifying moment for us.' For two hours, the audience of some 300 people applauded and at times stood cheering for the Arizona Democrat, one of several party figures who have been attacking the bill in congressional districts represented by Republicans. He was in Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks' 1st Congressional District, among the most competitive in the nation in the past three congressional elections. For a party frustrated with an array of Trump administration initiatives, the measure has had its own energizing effect. 'I came here because I work in health care and this bill will hurt health care,' said Alexandra Salter, a physicians assistant from Davenport. 'I think we are getting more vocal about it, because we need to speak up.' The meeting contrasted sharply with Flood's meeting in Lincoln, Nebraska, on Monday, when an even larger crowd of 700 voiced vigorous opposition to the bill, locking in especially on its changes to Medicaid, the federally funded health care program for low-income American. The bill, which passed with no Democratic votes in the House or Senate, makes substantial cuts to the health care program, notably by imposing work requirements for many of those receiving aid. The same frustration that drew Wernimont to Davenport Saturday convinced Ann Ashburn of Aurora, Nebraska, to drive the 70 miles (113 kilometers) to Lincoln to face Flood on Monday. Ashburn learned about Flood's appearance through an Omaha-area Democratic group called Blue Dot and reached out to friends who joined her. She dismissed any suggestion that such opposition had been orchestrated. 'I think the momentum could have been much greater had we been better organized,' the 72-year-old retired executive said. For now, Republicans have their work cut out for them if they hope to use the measure as a reason for voters to return them to the majority in the 2026 elections. About two-thirds of U.S. adults expect the new law will help the rich, according to the poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Most — about 6 in 10 — also think it will do more to hurt than help low-income people, according to the survey taken last. Gallego used his trip to Iowa, which included a requisite stop at the Iowa State Fair, to burnish his own profile in a state that, until 2020, traditionally had hosted the first event in the Democrats' presidential nominating process. Iowa Democrats hope to return to the front of the parade when the 2028 primaries and caucuses begin. Other figures already popular nationally with Democrats such as New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have been making stops in Republican districts decrying the legislation. Ocasio-Cortez last month headlined an event in New York's 21st District, represented by Republican Elise Stefanik, noting among other items its Medicaid provisions. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is scheduled to hold rallies Sunday in Republican-held House districts in North Carolina. He too planned to focus on Medicaid cuts, and note their impact on rural hospitals in the state where former Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat now running for U.S. Senate, worked with the GOP-controlled legislature to expand Medicaid coverage in 2023. Thomas Beaumont, The Associated Press