During the sixties, at the height of the cold warthe United States and the Soviet Union accumulated nuclear weapons without clear limits, trapped in a logic of absolute distrust marked by crises such as that of the missiles in Cuba and by the certainty that a miscalculation could trigger a global catastrophe. It was in that atmosphere of fear when they began to assume that continuing to add warheads did not make the world safer, thus laying the foundations for the first major nuclear control agreement.
Today we are four days away from ending to that pact.
The end of nuclear control. Yes, because on Thursday of this week New START expiresthe last treaty that legally limited the deployed nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia, ending more than fifty years of agreements, inspections and transparency mechanisms that had drastically reduced the number of nuclear warheads since the peak of the Cold War.
The agreement, signed in 2010 and extended in 2021, established a cap of 1,550 warheads strategic by country and allowed for data exchanges and on-site inspections designed to avoid dangerous misunderstandings. Its disappearance not only eliminates formal limits, but also the verification system that gave true value to the treaty, in a context marked by the war in Ukraine, unilateral suspension Russian inspections and a climate of mistrust that has not been seen for decades.
Indifference and risks. The most striking thing about the end of New START is the little political reaction in Washington, where debate has been minimal even as the world enters an era no nuclear restrictions for the first time since the sixties. The Trump administration has let the treaty die without a clear position, while pressure grows within the security apparatus to increase the number of nuclear weapons rather than reduce them.
This emptiness contrasts with the warnings of experts and with the symbolism of the Doomsday Clocknews the last few days because has approached more than ever at midnight, a true reflection of the fear of an uncontrolled arms race that could involve not only Russia and the United States, but also the third party “in contention”: China.
Russia, China and a dilemma. If we do a futurology exercise and everything follows the expected course, starting on Thursday and without the treaty, the United States, for example, could return to “load” multiple warheads on missiles that today carry only one, a practice abandoned to comply with New START, while Russia retains the capability to do it quickly because it never stopped deploying missiles with multiple warheads.
At this point, many analysts warn that Moscow could react faster than Washington in an escalation scenario, while Beijing continues expanding your arsenal at a pace not seen since the Cold War, although still far from the figures of the two superpowers that started it all. The combination of mistrust, new weapons not covered by previous agreements and emerging systems such as underwater nuclear drones or exotic missiles aggravates the feeling of entering unknown strategic terrain.
An opportunity that closes. Despite everything, there is still a small window to avoid the worst scenario, since Russia has hinted that could continue to voluntarily respect the limits and former negotiators defend that accepting a temporary extension with restored inspections would be a pragmatic and cheap gesture to save time.
Beyond the technique, the collapse by New START It symbolizes something deeper: the erosion of the idea that nuclear stability is better managed by rules, communication and transparency than by arms accumulation. Whether this moment marks just a blip or the beginning of a new normal will depend on immediate political decisionsalthough the consensus among experts is crystal clear: without some type of control, the world enters a more dangerous, more disturbing, more opaque phase and, of course, with less room for error.
Image | Steve Jurvetson
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings