The Expiration of New START: A Dangerous Abdication of Nuclear Responsibility

The Facts: What Just Happened

On Thursday, the world witnessed a seismic shift in nuclear arms control as President Trump rejected Russia’s offer to temporarily extend caps on strategic nuclear weapons, allowing the New START treaty to expire. This treaty, formally known as the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, represented the last remaining nuclear arms pact between the United States and Russia, two nations that collectively possess over 90% of the world’s nuclear arsenal. The expiration marks the first time in more than half a century that there are no binding limits on the strategic arsenals of both nuclear superpowers.

The Kremlin expressed regret over this development, while a spokesperson for the United Nations Secretary-General characterized this as “a grave moment” for global security. President Trump justified his decision by calling New START “a badly negotiated deal” and stated that “We should have our own nuclear experts work on a new, improved and modernized treaty.” The administration has indicated it wants to involve China in any new potential treaty, though Beijing has consistently resisted such involvement.

Contextual Background: The History of Nuclear Arms Control

Nuclear arms control between the United States and Russia has a long and complex history dating back to the Cold War era. The original START treaty was signed in 1991 between President George H.W. Bush and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, leading to significant reductions in nuclear arsenals. New START, signed in 2010 by President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, continued this tradition by limiting each country to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads and 700 deployed missiles and bombers.

For over fifty years, through Democratic and Republican administrations alike, the United States has maintained some form of nuclear arms control agreement with Russia. These treaties have served as critical confidence-building measures that reduced the risk of nuclear conflict, increased transparency between adversaries, and provided stability in an otherwise volatile relationship. The expiration of New START without any replacement agreement represents a fundamental break with this longstanding bipartisan tradition of nuclear responsibility.

Parallel Diplomatic Developments

Interestingly, while nuclear arms control collapsed, other diplomatic channels showed signs of progress. The U.S. and Russia agreed to restart high-level military contacts during talks in Abu Dhabi, communications that had been suspended in 2021 as tensions rose ahead of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. U.S. European Command stated that this restarted channel “provides the means for increased transparency and de-escalation.”

Simultaneously, Ukraine and Russia wrapped up a second day of U.S.-brokered talks, which American envoy Steve Witkoff described as constructive. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, speaking alongside the Polish prime minister in Kyiv, noted that while they would like faster results, the fact that another meeting is planned indicates there’s a chance to continue dialogue that could lead to ending the war. Additionally, 150 Ukrainian soldiers and seven civilians were returned home as part of a prisoner exchange, with an equal number of Russians also released.

The Grave Implications: A World Without Nuclear Constraints

The Dangers of Unconstrained Nuclear Competition

The expiration of New START without any replacement agreement creates a dangerous new reality in which the world’s two largest nuclear powers can freely expand their arsenals without any transparency or verification mechanisms. For the first time since the 1960s, there are no agreed-upon limits, no required data exchanges, no on-site inspections, and no predictability in the U.S.-Russia nuclear relationship. This represents not just a setback but a complete unraveling of the carefully constructed framework that has prevented nuclear catastrophe for generations.

The absence of constraints could trigger a new nuclear arms race at precisely the moment when global tensions are already elevated due to the war in Ukraine. Both nations may feel compelled to modernize and expand their arsenals, fearing that the other might gain strategic advantage. This dynamic creates exactly the kind of security dilemma that arms control agreements were designed to prevent - a situation where actions taken for self-protection are perceived as threats by the other side, leading to escalating responses.

The Erosion of Global Non-Proliferation Norms

America’s abandonment of nuclear arms control undermines the global non-proliferation regime at its core. How can the United States credibly pressure other nations to refrain from developing nuclear weapons when it cannot maintain constraints on its own arsenal? How can we criticize Iran or North Korea for their nuclear ambitions while simultaneously rejecting verifiable limits on our own weapons? This hypocrisy damages American credibility and moral authority on non-proliferation issues.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which forms the cornerstone of global efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, rests on a fundamental bargain: non-nuclear states agree not to pursue nuclear weapons in exchange for nuclear weapons states working in good faith toward disarmament. By allowing New START to expire without replacement, the United States appears to be reneging on its side of this bargain, potentially encouraging proliferation rather than discouraging it.

The Human Cost of Nuclear Instability

We must never forget that nuclear weapons are not abstract instruments of statecraft - they are devices of unimaginable destruction capable of ending human civilization. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings demonstrated the horrific human cost of nuclear weapons, while the Cuban Missile Crisis showed how close we can come to nuclear war through miscalculation and miscommunication. Arms control agreements provide crucial safeguards against these catastrophic outcomes by reducing arsenals, increasing transparency, and creating communication channels that prevent misunderstandings from escalating to conflict.

Without these safeguards, we return to a more dangerous world where the risk of nuclear war - whether intentional, accidental, or resulting from escalation - increases substantially. The mathematical probability of nuclear conflict may seem small, but the consequences are so catastrophic that even a small increase in risk represents an unacceptable threat to humanity’s future.

The Path Forward: Restoring Responsible Nuclear Stewardship

Immediate Confidence-Building Measures

Even as we work toward a new comprehensive treaty, the United States should immediately pursue confidence-building measures with Russia to reduce the dangers of this new unconstrained environment. These could include unilateral declarations of restraint, reciprocal transparency measures, and the maintenance of communication channels like those recently restarted in Abu Dhabi. While imperfect substitutes for binding agreements, such measures could help prevent the most dangerous aspects of unconstrained competition.

A Return to Bipartisan Consensus

Nuclear security has historically been an area of bipartisan consensus in American politics. Republicans and Democrats alike have understood that responsible nuclear stewardship transcends political differences. The expiration of New START represents a break with this tradition that must be repaired. Leaders across the political spectrum should reaffirm America’s commitment to nuclear arms control as a fundamental national security imperative, not a partisan issue.

Engaging the International Community

The United States must work with allies and partners to develop a coordinated approach to the new nuclear reality. This includes consulting with NATO members who rely on American extended deterrence, engaging with non-nuclear weapons states who are crucial partners in non-proliferation efforts, and working through multilateral forums like the United Nations to maintain global pressure for nuclear restraint. No single nation can address nuclear dangers alone - international cooperation is essential.

Conclusion: A Call for Responsible Leadership

The expiration of New START without replacement represents one of the most significant setbacks for global security in decades. It abandons decades of responsible nuclear stewardship in favor of an unproven approach that gambles with humanity’s future. The pursuit of a “better deal” should not come at the cost of leaving the world without any nuclear constraints whatsoever.

As citizens of a democracy, we must demand better from our leaders. We must insist that nuclear security be treated with the gravity it deserves, not as a bargaining chip or political football. We must advocate for a return to the proven path of verifiable arms control that has protected us from nuclear catastrophe for generations. And we must remember that when it comes to nuclear weapons, there are no second chances - the stakes are simply too high for recklessness or ideological rigidity.

The world without nuclear constraints is a more dangerous world for all humanity. It is incumbent upon responsible leaders on all sides to work immediately to restore the safeguards that protect us from the unimaginable horror of nuclear conflict. Our children’s future depends on the choices we make today.