Despite their destructive capabilities, nuclear weapons are being modernized and increased. In fact nuclear disarmament negotiations are at a dead end. This year, the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of nuclear weapons will celebrate its Review Conference between April 27 and May 22 in New York and the reduction of nuclear weapons by the two countries with the largest arsenals - i.e., Russia and the United States - seems essential to comply with the objectives of the NPT.
Last year in August, US President Donald Trump met with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Alaska and although it was expected both would discuss the renewal of the New START treaty, this simply did not happen. The New START is a disarmament agreement of strategic nuclear weapons signed in 2010 by then US and Russian Presidents Obama and Medvedev, respectively. START is the acronym for Strategic Arms Reduction Talks and it was built on previous nuclear disarmament agreements that reduced the US-Soviet arsenals during the Cold War. The New START limits strategic weapons for the US and Russia at 1 550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads each, 800 deployed and non-deployed strategic launchers, and up to 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers. It also established detailed transparency and verification mechanisms, including data exchanges, notifications and on-site inspections. All this, however, may experience a setback if, by February 4, the day the New START officially expires, neither Washington nor Moscow reach consensus on the renewal of the agreement.
But the consequences of the death of the New START go beyond the disarmament of strategic nuclear weapons in possession of the Americans and the Russians. As the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has underlined, the nine countries in possession of nuclear weapons - i.e., the US, Russia, China, France, United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea - are increasing and modernizing their arsenals at an incredible speed. Even though the US has suggested it would like to have a treaty of disarmament of nuclear weapons with Russia that includes China, the real problem is that, so far it is the American and Russian arsenals that prevail with 90 percent of all nuclear warheads in the world. China says it would not participate in such negotiations since its arsenal is very small. Currently SIPRI estimates that the nine nuclear powers have an estimate of 12,241 total warheads with Russia leading the list with 5 459, followed by the US with 5,177, and then comes China with 600, France with 290, the United Kingdom with 225, Pakistan with 170, India with 164, Israel with 90 and North Korea with 30. Russia and the US have around 3 912 warheads deployed with missiles and aircraft, of which 2 100 are kept in a state of high operational alert. This is why the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Doomsday Clock has been set at 85 seconds to midnight a few days ago, meaning the world is quickly approaching to a nuclear holocaust.
If the US and Russia do not reach an agreement on the extension of the New START, the message they will be sending to the world would be that they are not willing to refrain from putting humankind on the eve of destruction. Bye, nuclear restraint! Hello, strategic and non-strategic nuclear weapons proliferation! Sadly, nuclear proliferation is a reality and besides strategic arsenals one may want to take a look at tactic nuclear weapons, since these days there are narratives suggesting they could be used in combat operations because “they would not be as harmful as strategic nuclear weapons” (sic). Those who support this argument may want to remember the damage provoked by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki tactic atomic -i. e. fission- weapons, consisting of devices of 15 and 22 kilotons respectively, causing the death of approximately 140,000 and 74,000 persons in each city, due to blast, burns and radiation poisoning. The suggestion that because tactical atomic/nuclear weapons are “small” they do not harm peoples and the environment the way strategic nuclear weapons do, is irresponsible.
Another problem is the attack of nuclear facilities for peaceful purposes, as seen in Ukraine and Iran. One may want to consider that the world has around 440 operating nuclear reactors responsible for the generation of around 9-10 percent of electricity. Of course, accidents like Chernobyl 40 years ago and Fukushima in 2011 may still happen. Yet a nuclear holocaust could be the result of the deliberate use of nuclear weapons inviting to retaliation by the attacked country. Worse, nuclear facilities for peaceful purposes could be attacked by armies or even terrorists or organized crime organizations with unspeakable consequences.
But why is that the Trump administration does not seem interested in strategic nuclear arms reductions? There is the perception in some conservative circles, that agreeing on further strategic nuclear arms reductions with Russia will help China, since, as mentioned above, Beijing is not willing to be part of nuclear disarmament negotiations.
Another reason is that, according to pro-arms lobbyists, Russia has never honored the terms of nuclear disarmament agreements. It is widely believed Russia has cheated on and abrogated treaty after treaty, including Reagan-Gorbachov’s landmark Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) and New START itself. In fact, advisors to the Trump administration consider that because Russia has not allowed for years US inspectors into its country, it is disguising the renewal of its arsenal, which is why Washington should do the same.
But because all these are assumptions, it seems suspicion is replacing political commitments. New START limits the United States to mounting one warhead apiece on its 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles. The US nuclear doctrine requires that two warheads be used to engage and destroy enemy targets - which today means Washington would have to launch two intercontinental ballistic missiles per target, so that Washington covers about 225 targets. This is considered enough to serve as a credible deterrent against Russian aggression toward the American territory. Yet many wonder about China, since current American nuclear deterrence is mostly directed against Russia.
China has tripled its nuclear arsenal since 2020 and by the end of the decade will consolidate as the third major nuclear power in the world. Hawks in Washington consider that in just some years Beijing may have as many operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons as the United States and thus, the Americans would not be able to have the number of operationally deployed warheads to cover—and therefore deter—both Russia and China simultaneously. Besides, the strategic alliance between Russia and China has created concern in the US, and even though a larger Chinese nuclear arsenal may stress relations with Russia, currently is the US the country perceived as an existential threat by Moscow and Beijing, assumption which in turn brings them together.
The international mood does not favor disarmament even though only nine countries out of 193 United Nations members consider nuclear weapons guarantee security. The rest of the world is being taken hostage by nuclear powers, although it is most countries that agree that security is best served without nuclear weapons. This is why these countries promoted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), in force since 2021, that incidentally will face its first review conference this year.
Editor’s Note: The above guest column was penned by María Cristina Rosas, a professor and researcher in the faculty of political and social sciences at the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City. The column appears in The Rio Grande Guardian International News Service with the permission of the author. Rosas can be reached via email at: mcrosas@prodigy.net.mx
