Opinion | With US-Russia treaty set to expire, threat of a new nuclear arms race grows

In a fragmented multilateral environment, the world could face even greater danger from nuclear proliferation than during the Cold War

Reading Time:2 minutes

US president George Bush and Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev exchange documents after signing the START arms reduction treaty on July 31, 1991. Photo: Reuters

Published: 6:45am, 4 Feb 2026

Without a last-minute extension of an expiring treaty between the United States and Russia, the world faces the end of an era of post-Cold War controls over the size of their operational nuclear weapons arsenals, raising fears of a new arms race. The New START treaty – signed in 2010, extended in 2021, and which came after the original 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty known as START 1 – expires at midnight on Wednesday. China was not included. US President Donald Trump has demanded that any new agreement include China, which has declined to sign on while its nuclear arsenal remains vastly unequal to those of the major nuclear powers.

Russia’s offer of a one-year extension of New START is apparently still on the table. The US-Russia treaty is more useful than some think. It limits the number of deployable, or operational, warheads. To verify compliance, both countries need to be transparent about deployment – which can help reduce miscalculation and risk. Thursday will be the first time this century the world is living with no treaty between the major nuclear powers. Caps on deployment and transparency will be gone. This will not help make the world safer.

Credible nuclear deterrence is of major strategic importance to Beijing – hence it does not want to enter an arms treaty so far behind two powers that have spent years perfecting their arsenals. Moreover, there have been many advances, such as supersonic delivery.

The net result of the expiry of the New START treaty would not only be an end to checks on deployment and transparency – second-tier nuclear powers like the United Kingdom and France would be more likely to increase their arsenals, while third-tier countries like India and Pakistan may also eye arsenal expansion to keep up.

The world could arguably face even greater danger from nuclear proliferation than during the Cold War, which was between two major blocs unlike the current fragmented multilateral environment in which the risk of miscalculation is manifold. Not to mention, there is growing doubt the US can be relied upon as a responsible power amid the uncertainty generated by its unilateral attacks abroad and withdrawal from scores of international organisations.

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}In a fragmented multilateral environment, the world could face even greater danger from nuclear proliferation than during the Cold War

In a fragmented multilateral environment, the world could face even greater danger from nuclear proliferation than during the Cold War