The expiration of the New Start treaty between the United States and Russia has sparked urgent concern among policymakers, military analysts, and global security experts. Signed in 2010 by President Obama and President Medvedev, the agreement limited each country to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads, restricted bombers and launchers, and allowed on-site inspections to ensure compliance. The treaty, hailed at the time as a cornerstone of arms control and a symbol of U.S.-Russia cooperation, is now set to expire, leaving the world without limits on the two largest nuclear arsenals.
President Obama warned that the treaty’s end would “pointlessly wipe out decades of diplomacy” and could trigger a new arms race, making the world “less safe.” His Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, echoed the alarm, calling the termination a development that should “alarm everyone.” With New Start gone, there are no formal negotiations underway to establish a replacement, and neither side is obliged to report warhead numbers or missile locations. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov described the situation as “a new moment, a new reality,” while Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov cautioned that the world would face a “more dangerous situation.”
The stakes are underscored by the Doomsday Clock, recently moved to 85 seconds to midnight—the closest to catastrophe since its inception in 1947. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which maintains the clock, cited growing nuclear threats as a primary driver of its assessment. Experts such as Georgia Cole of London’s Chatham House say the expiration of New Start marks “the most dangerous period we’ve been in since the height of the Cold War,” highlighting low trust, minimal transparency, and the risk of miscalculations.
Russia and the United States had already been operating outside full treaty compliance. President Putin suspended participation in New Start’s mutual verification system in 2023, citing tensions related to the war in Ukraine. In response, the U.S. halted sharing data on missile locations. Neither side accused the other of exceeding warhead limits, but the lack of oversight now increases the risk of unintentional escalation. Russian Sarmat-2 intercontinental ballistic missiles, capable of carrying nuclear warheads, have already been tested, signaling Moscow’s readiness to deploy new strategic systems.
Attempts to negotiate a replacement treaty have faced major obstacles. In September, Putin offered to extend New Start’s restrictions for another year, but the U.S. did not formally respond. Former President Trump, when asked about the treaty’s expiration, stated: “If it expires, it expires. We’ll do a better agreement,” insisting that any future deal include China. Beijing, however, has resisted, arguing that it will not join negotiations until it reaches nuclear parity with Washington and Moscow. China currently possesses approximately 600 warheads, compared with 3,700 for the U.S. and more than 4,300 for Russia.
Analysts warn that without a new treaty, the United States, Russia, and potentially China could enter a three-way arms race. Thomas Countryman, former U.S. State Department arms control official, suggested that the U.S. would quickly redeploy warheads onto existing launchers, while Russia and China continue expanding their arsenals and developing new delivery systems. He warned that such a race could exceed the costs and risks of Cold War-era escalation.
Historical precedent highlights the danger of miscalculation. During the Cold War, Soviet lieutenant colonel Stanislav Petrov prevented a potential nuclear disaster in 1983 by correctly identifying a false alarm indicating a U.S. missile launch. Similar errors in today’s tense environment could have catastrophic consequences, experts caution. The potential for mistakes is exacerbated by U.S. plans for the Golden Dome missile defense system in Greenland, which could provoke Moscow and Beijing to develop more advanced nuclear capabilities. Critics liken Golden Dome to Reagan’s Star Wars program, though analysts remain skeptical that it will produce comparable geopolitical leverage over Putin’s regime.
Meanwhile, Russia’s public nuclear rhetoric has intensified. State media and government officials have repeatedly suggested that nuclear strikes could be justified in the context of the Ukraine war, contributing to a normalization of nuclear threats within Russian discourse. Surveys by the independent Levada Center indicate that roughly four in ten Russians believe the Kremlin would be justified in using nuclear weapons in Ukraine, reflecting the growing domestic acceptance of nuclear escalation.
Globally, nine countries now maintain nuclear arsenals, and the risk of miscalculation or deliberate use cannot be dismissed. Mark Lynas, author of Six Minutes to Winter, has warned that world leaders largely remain in “wilful, obstinate global denial” about the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons. He argues that a renewed Cold War mindset—treating nuclear arsenals as the central existential danger—remains essential. While total disarmament may be unrealistic, a reduction in strategic stockpiles to hundreds, or even tens of warheads per state, could mitigate the catastrophic risk of global nuclear conflict.
As the New Start treaty lapses, experts fear a perilous new era of instability. Without formal arms control, low transparency, and ongoing geopolitical tensions, the world may face heightened risk of a nuclear confrontation or catastrophic miscalculation. Analysts warn that even limited escalation could have far-reaching consequences, and that the delicate balance of nuclear deterrence that held for decades may now be under unprecedented strain.
