Nuclear Paradox: Fewer, More Risky
The Evolving Nuclear Landscape: Arsenals, Arms Control, and Escalating Risks in a New Era
Executive Summary
The global security landscape is undergoing a profound transformation, signaling the end of the post-Cold War era of nuclear arms reductions and ushering in a more perilous nuclear age. As of January 2025, the world's nuclear arsenal stands at approximately 12,241 warheads, with a concerning trend of modernization and expansion across nearly all nine nuclear-armed states. Notably, China's rapid build-up and the escalating regional dynamics in South Asia are significant drivers of this renewed arms race. Concurrently, the foundational arms control frameworks, particularly the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), are facing imminent collapse, eroding transparency and increasing the potential for unconstrained expansion and miscalculation.
Compounding these challenges is the integration of emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), hypersonic weapons, and cyber capabilities into strategic systems. These advancements compress decision-making timelines, blur the lines between conventional and nuclear conflict, and introduce new pathways for escalation, raising the specter of accidental or inadvertent nuclear use. The potential consequences of such a conflict, even a limited one, are catastrophic, extending far beyond immediate blast effects to encompass a "nuclear winter" scenario that would devastate global climate, agriculture, and food security for years, leading to widespread famine. Despite the scientific consensus on these dire outcomes, policy prioritization remains low. Mitigating these escalating risks requires a multi-faceted approach, including operational de-alerting measures, consideration of no-first-use policies, urgent norm-setting for emerging technologies like anti-satellite weapons and AI in nuclear command and control, and a renewed commitment to multilateral disarmament initiatives. The current trajectory is unsustainable, demanding immediate and concerted international action to prevent a global catastrophe.
Introduction: Navigating a Resurgent Nuclear Age
The current international security environment is characterized by heightened geopolitical instability and a discernible shift towards strategic competition among major powers. This period marks a critical juncture, as the post-Cold War era, which saw a gradual decline in the number of nuclear weapons, is demonstrably coming to an end.1 Instead, the world is witnessing a clear trend of growing nuclear arsenals, accompanied by sharpened nuclear rhetoric and a widespread weakening of established arms control agreements.1 This confluence of factors is giving way to a more complex, unpredictable, and inherently dangerous nuclear landscape.
This report aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the evolving global nuclear environment. It will delve into the current status and modernization trends of nuclear arsenals worldwide, examine the significant erosion of arms control frameworks, and explore the new dimensions of risk introduced by rapidly advancing technologies. Furthermore, the report will reassess the catastrophic consequences of nuclear war, emphasizing the global and long-term impacts that extend far beyond immediate detonations. Finally, it will outline potential pathways and strategies for mitigating these escalating nuclear risks and enhancing global stability in this resurgent nuclear age.
Global Nuclear Arsenals: Current Status and Modernization Trends
As of January 2025, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) provide updated overviews of global nuclear arsenals. The estimated worldwide inventory stands at approximately 12,241 nuclear warheads.1 Of these, a significant portion, around 9,614, are held in military stockpiles ready for potential use, with approximately 3,912 warheads deployed on missiles or aircraft.1 A particularly concerning aspect is that around 2,100 of these deployed warheads are maintained on high operational alert, primarily belonging to Russia and the United States.1
The distribution and modernization efforts among the nine nuclear-armed states reveal a dynamic and concerning picture:
Russia possesses the largest stockpile, estimated at 5,459 warheads by SIPRI or over 5,500 by FAS, including approximately 1,912 non-strategic warheads.3 Despite experiencing some test failures and delays in 2024, Russia is anticipated to increase its nuclear deployments in the near future, potentially by reloading emptied silos and enhancing warhead capacity on missiles.1
The United States holds 5,177 warheads according to SIPRI or 5,044 according to FAS.3 Of its 200 non-strategic warheads, 100 are deployed in five European countries: Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Türkiye.4 While US modernization efforts faced planning and financial setbacks in 2024, an increase in nuclear deployments is also expected, possibly through reactivating launchers and introducing new warheads.1
China possesses an estimated 600 nuclear warheads, with 24 currently deployed.3 China's arsenal has expanded at a rate faster than any other nuclear-armed state, growing by roughly 100 warheads per year since 2023.1 The nation has constructed or is near completion of approximately 350 new Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) silos, a development that could allow it to match the ICBM numbers of Russia or the United States by the 2030s.1 A significant shift in China's posture is the possibility that it may now keep some warheads on missiles during peacetime.1
India is estimated to have 180 nuclear warheads.3 Its strategic focus is increasingly on developing longer-range weapons capable of targeting China. Recent strategies, such as placing missiles in canisters and conducting sea-based patrols, indicate a shift towards mating warheads with launchers in peacetime.3
Pakistan holds 170 nuclear warheads and continues to develop new delivery systems and accumulate fissile material, suggesting potential growth in its arsenal over the next decade.1
The United Kingdom, France, Israel, and North Korea are also believed to be increasing their stockpiles, though France and Israel's inventories have remained relatively stable compared to the rapid expansion seen in other nations.2 Belarus is noted as hosting Russian nuclear weapons.1
The widespread trend of modernization extends beyond mere numerical increases. There is a notable expansion in the development of missiles with multiple warheads (MIRVs), a capability that was once primarily limited to France, Russia, the UK, and the USA, but now includes China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea.3 This technological proliferation enhances the destructive potential of each missile launch.
The current global nuclear landscape reveals a fundamental shift away from the post-Cold War trend of nuclear arms reductions. The explicit statement that "The era of reductions in the number of nuclear weapons in the world, which had lasted since the end of the cold war, is coming to an end" 1 signifies a profound reversal in global strategic thinking. Major powers appear to be moving away from arms control as a primary mechanism for stability, instead re-emphasizing military capabilities and deterrence through numerical strength and modernization. This pivot has substantial implications for international security frameworks, potentially leading to a more competitive and less predictable global environment.
China's rapid nuclear expansion stands out as a key driver of global instability. The specific data on its growth rate—"roughly 100 warheads per year since 2023" and the construction of "around 350 new ICBM silos" 1—illustrates an unprecedented pace of build-up. While China's arsenal remains smaller than those of the United States and Russia, the sheer speed and trajectory of its expansion are explicitly identified as adding "momentum to the global arms race and raised strategic concerns".1 This suggests that China's actions are not merely about its own national security but are actively influencing the strategic calculus of other major nuclear powers, particularly the United States and Russia, potentially triggering a reactive build-up and accelerating a multi-polar nuclear arms race.
Regional nuclear dynamics are also exhibiting heightened risks, particularly in South Asia. Both India and Pakistan are continuing their arsenal growth and modernization.1 A critical development is the mention of a "brief armed conflict between India and Pakistan in early 2025," which "highlighted the risks of escalation".1 This moves beyond theoretical possession to a demonstrated, recent instance of active conflict between nuclear-armed states, underscoring the immediate and tangible danger. Furthermore, India's strategic focus on "longer-range weapons capable of targeting China" 3 introduces a new dimension, indicating that regional dynamics are not isolated but are becoming interconnected with the broader great-power competition, increasing the complexity and potential for wider escalation. Beyond South Asia, other countries, particularly in East Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, are reconsidering their nuclear status, indicating a broader trend of proliferation concerns.1
A concerning development is the blurring of lines regarding nuclear deployment and operational alertness. The report notes that "China may now also keep some warheads on missiles during peacetime" 1, and India is "shifting towards mating warheads with launchers in peacetime".3 This signifies a departure from traditional postures where warheads might be stored separately from delivery systems. This increased state of readiness, even if the total number of warheads is not changing, directly reduces the decision-making time available in a crisis. This posture increases the inherent risk of accidental or inadvertent launch, as the physical and procedural barriers to nuclear use are being lowered, making the global nuclear environment more precarious.
Estimated Global Nuclear Warhead Inventories (2025)
Note: Numbers are estimates and may vary slightly between sources (e.g., SIPRI vs. FAS). "N/A" indicates data not explicitly provided for deployed warheads for these countries in the source material, though they do deploy some. 1
The Erosion of Arms Control Frameworks
The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) stands as the last remaining binding bilateral arms control treaty between the United States and Russia, serving as a crucial bulwark against an unconstrained arms race by limiting long-range nuclear weapons.5 This treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011, legally restricts each country to 1,550 deployed strategic warheads, 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers for ICBMs and Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs), and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments, with a further limit of 700 deployed ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers.7
A cornerstone of New START's effectiveness lies in its robust verification mechanisms. These include 18 on-site inspections per year, exchanges of telemetric information from missile launches, and regular data exchanges and notifications on weapon systems and facilities.7 As of February 1, 2023, the treaty had facilitated 328 on-site inspections and 25,449 notifications exchanged, providing vital transparency into each other's intercontinental-range nuclear forces and operations.7
However, the treaty's future is precarious. Russia suspended its participation in New START in February 2023, citing US support for Ukraine and perceived violations of treaty principles, although it pledged to continue abiding by the numerical limits.5 In response, the United States ended Russia's ability to monitor US nuclear sites.5 In January 2025, the US State Department reported it could not certify Russia's compliance, though it did not identify any large-scale activity above the treaty's limits in 2024.5 The treaty is scheduled to expire on February 5, 2026, and crucially, it cannot be extended further as its one-time five-year extension was utilized in 2021.5
The imminent collapse of bilateral arms control, particularly with New START being the "last remaining" treaty 5, represents a critical juncture. The fact that it cannot be extended beyond February 2026 6 and the explicit unlikelihood of a follow-on agreement being negotiated 5 means that after 2026, the two largest nuclear powers will operate without any binding limits or mutual transparency. This situation directly implies a heightened risk of an "era of arsenal expansion" 5 and a "breakdown of cooperation and communication" 6, significantly increasing the potential for miscalculation, distrust, and an unconstrained arms race.
The deterioration of arms control is deeply intertwined with broader geopolitical dynamics. Russia's suspension of New START is not merely a technical decision but is explicitly linked to broader grievances, including perceived US violations of treaty principles, the pursuit of Russia's "strategic defeat," NATO expansion, and the development of missile defense systems.5 This demonstrates that arms control treaties are often held hostage to wider international political tensions and strategic maneuvering. Both nations appear to be using the treaty as a "diplomatic tool to further their respective geopolitical agendas".6 This suggests that a resolution to the current arms control crisis requires addressing the underlying political mistrust and strategic competition, rather than focusing solely on technical negotiations.
The challenge of multilateralizing arms control in this disparate nuclear landscape is also significant. The discussion of including China in future arms control talks 5 highlights a structural impediment. China's nuclear arsenal, while growing rapidly, is still considerably smaller than those of the US and Russia.1 This disparity has historically made China reluctant to join trilateral negotiations.5 China's preference for negotiation through the United Nations Conference on Disarmament (UNCD) 5 also indicates a different philosophical approach to arms control. This implies that transitioning from a bilateral (US-Russia) to a multilateral framework is exceedingly complex, requiring innovative diplomatic approaches that account for the vastly different nuclear postures, strategic priorities, and perceived security needs of all nuclear-armed states. A "one-size-fits-all" approach is unlikely to succeed.
The erosion of trust and transparency is a direct consequence of these developments, serving as a precursor to instability. The loss of on-site inspections, data exchanges, and notifications 6 due to Russia's suspension is not just a procedural setback; it means a "decrease in U.S. knowledge of Russian nuclear forces" and "less confidence in our assessments".7 This lack of verifiable information and transparency directly fosters "worst-case assumptions" 7 in strategic planning. When states operate in an information vacuum, they are more likely to assume the worst about an adversary's capabilities and intentions, which can drive reactive military buildups, increase the risk of strategic surprise, and make miscalculation more probable in a crisis. The value of New START was as much about confidence-building through transparency as it was about numerical limits.
The broader context suggests a general deterioration of the global arms control regime over the years.6 Growing pressure from nuclear hawks in the United States to exceed New START limits and expand the nuclear program 5 further complicates prospects for future agreements. While former President Trump has remarked on "denuclearization" and a willingness to restart conversations, his general skepticism towards collective arms control measures remains a concern.5
Key Provisions and Current Status of the New START Treaty
5
Emerging Technologies: New Dimensions of Nuclear Risk
The integration of advanced technologies into military systems is introducing unprecedented complexities and new pathways for nuclear escalation. Artificial intelligence, hypersonic weapons, and cyber capabilities are reshaping the strategic landscape, compressing decision times, and blurring critical distinctions.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Nuclear Command & Control (NC2): Risks of Miscalculation and Loss of Human Control
The application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to nuclear weapons systems, encompassing operations, strategy, doctrine, and command and control, is met with considerable skepticism due to concerns about detrimental effects on strategic stability and increased risks of accidental or inadvertent escalation.10 There is a prevailing understanding that humans remain the "most essential element" of nuclear command and control, with calls for "meaningful human control" or "appropriate levels of human judgment" over these systems.10 This sentiment is reinforced by the agreement reached between Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Joe Biden in late 2024, stating that AI should never be empowered to decide to launch a nuclear war.11
While no serious proposal suggests that AI should be entrusted with the actual decision to launch nuclear weapons 10, AI's integration into supporting roles is a growing reality. This includes processing and integrating data from sensors to signal incoming attacks, and providing options to commanders regarding possible courses of action during conflict.10 However, this integration carries significant risks. AI can speed up warfare and decision-making, giving human decision-makers even less time to consider whether or not to launch nuclear weapons—a timeframe already measured in mere minutes.12 Furthermore, AI in satellite and other intelligence detection systems could make historically concealed nuclear assets, such as ballistic missile submarines, harder to hide.12 There are also concerns about the unknown ability to "spoof" these systems, which could have terrifying consequences.12 AI systems trained on prevailing doctrines might make "wrong conclusions" or recommend escalation in crisis scenarios, potentially leading to "subtle errors without warning".11 Paradoxically, AI also holds the potential to help prevent egregious errors in crisis scenarios 13 and could act as a "check on human thinking and behavior" 11, but these potential benefits must be carefully weighed against the significant and unpredictable risks. Achieving international agreements to limit AI in nuclear contexts is particularly challenging due to inherent verification difficulties.10
Hypersonic Weapons: Compressing Decision Time and Blurring Conventional-Nuclear Lines
Hypersonic weapons, defined by their ability to exceed Mach 5 with unpredictable flight paths, represent the most significant advancement in missile technology since ICBMs.14 These capabilities fundamentally challenge existing missile defense systems and are on track to undermine nuclear deterrence postures and create cracks in strategic stability by the mid-2020s.14 Their ability to glide and maneuver within the atmosphere allows them to evade traditional radar detection and interceptor systems, drastically compressing warning times to mere minutes.12 This severe reduction in reaction time amplifies the risk of miscalculations and accidental escalation, particularly in moments of crisis.14
A critical danger posed by hypersonic weapons is their dual-use capability—their ability to carry both conventional and nuclear payloads. This "blurs the lines between conventional and nuclear conflict" 14, creating a perilous ambiguity. In a crisis, adversaries may "assume the worst," dramatically raising the risk of miscalculation and unintended escalation.14 The potential for these weapons to be deployed in a first-strike role fundamentally alters the calculus of deterrence, as the threat of retaliation may no longer be sufficient to prevent aggression.14 North Korea's claimed successful hypersonic missile tests signal a potential integration of these weapons into its theater nuclear strategy 14, and the overall technological competition in this domain may lead to further nuclear build-up globally.15
Cyberattacks on Nuclear Infrastructure: Escalation Pathways and Vulnerabilities
Cyberattacks pose a growing threat to critical infrastructure, with direct implications for nuclear stability. Recent events, such as US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, have demonstrably escalated geopolitical tensions and significantly increased the risk of retaliatory cyberattacks targeting American infrastructure.16 The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) anticipates that Iran's cyber forces will target US networks, with "low-level cyber attacks" from pro-Iranian hacktivists and potential government-affiliated attacks.17 Historically, Iranian cyber actors have targeted poorly secured US networks, including a breach of US water infrastructure in late 2023, and routinely launch distributed denial of service attacks against aerospace, oil, gas, and telecommunications entities.17
Such attacks, even if initially conventional, could lead to unpredictable "blowback" 16 and increase the risk of miscalculation. If cyberattacks disrupt critical infrastructure related to nuclear command and control or early warning systems, they could create false alarms or hinder response capabilities, opening new and dangerous pathways to escalation. The interconnectedness of cyber and physical security is underscored by warnings of potential physical threats stemming from such cyber activity.17
The compounding effect of these emerging technologies on crisis stability is a major concern. Hypersonic weapons drastically reduce warning and decision time to "mere minutes".14 AI, even without direct launch authority, can accelerate data processing, analysis, and targeting, further shortening the human decision window.12 Concurrently, cyberattacks can disrupt critical infrastructure, introduce ambiguity, or even generate false warnings.16 When these technologies are considered together, they create a highly compressed, opaque, and potentially error-prone decision-making environment. This synergistic effect means that human decision-makers face unprecedented pressure, significantly increasing the likelihood of accidental, inadvertent, or rapid escalation in a crisis, even from a non-nuclear trigger.
The paradox of AI in nuclear systems is evident: it holds potential for both risk mitigation and escalation. While there is a strong consensus against AI making autonomous launch decisions 10, AI is increasingly integrated into supporting roles such as sensor data processing, intelligence analysis, and generating response options.10 Some analyses suggest AI could "help prevent egregious errors" 13 or serve as a "check on human thinking".11 However, the risks are equally profound: AI could make "subtle errors without warning" 13, reach "wrong conclusions" based on flawed doctrines 11, or be susceptible to "spoofing".12 This creates a complex situation where AI is simultaneously viewed as a tool to enhance decision-making and a vector for introducing new, unpredictable risks. Its integration thus represents a complex balancing act with high stakes.
A dangerous ambiguity is created by dual-use capabilities inherent in these technologies. Hypersonic weapons 14 and certain cyber capabilities can serve both conventional and nuclear purposes. This "blurs the lines between conventional and nuclear conflict" 14, forcing adversaries to "assume the worst in a crisis" 14 due to the inherent uncertainty of a payload or intent. This ambiguity dramatically heightens the risk of miscalculation and unintended escalation, as a conventional attack could be perceived as a nuclear one, or vice-versa, leading to disproportionate or pre-emptive responses based on incomplete information.
Furthermore, the growing vulnerability of critical infrastructure to state-sponsored cyber threats represents a significant escalation pathway. The direct correlation between US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and the expected retaliatory cyberattacks on US infrastructure 16 establishes a clear cause-and-effect relationship. The targeting of civilian infrastructure, such as US water systems 17, demonstrates that these are not theoretical threats but have real-world disruptive potential. This indicates that critical civilian infrastructure is increasingly becoming a battleground in geopolitical conflicts. Any significant disruption to energy, communications, or other vital systems could indirectly impact nuclear command and control, create widespread panic, or be misconstrued as a precursor to a larger attack, thereby opening new, unpredictable pathways to escalation.
Impact of Emerging Technologies on Nuclear Risk
10
Catastrophic Consequences of Nuclear War: Reassessing the Unthinkable
The potential consequences of nuclear war extend far beyond immediate blast and radiation effects, posing an existential threat to global civilization and the natural environment.
The Nuclear Winter Hypothesis: Scientific Consensus, Uncertainties, and Global Climatic Impacts
The "nuclear winter" hypothesis, first introduced by the TTAPS study in 1983, warned of the catastrophic climatic impacts of large-scale nuclear exchanges. This research suggested that massive amounts of sooty smoke, produced from widespread fires and lofted into the stratosphere, could dramatically reduce global temperatures for months.18 While initial widespread interest waned after the Cold War, scientific study was rekindled in the 2000s, driven by concerns about the growing arsenals of India and Pakistan.18
Nuclear winter is considered potentially the "most severe consequence of nuclear war".18 The causal pathway involves a sequence of devastating effects: weapon employment scenarios leading to widespread fires, subsequent smoke and soot emissions, plume rise and transport into the stratosphere, physical Earth system impacts (e.g., temperature drops, reduced sunlight), ecosystem impacts, and ultimately, severe socioeconomic impacts.19 Even a "limited" nuclear war, such as the use of just 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (less than 10% of global arsenals), could release 5 billion kilograms of soot into the upper atmosphere, leading to a rapid global cooling of approximately 1°C for two to three years and significant reductions in rainfall.20 Beyond cooling, nuclear detonations produce large amounts of nitrogen oxides that can deplete the ozone layer by up to 70% at northern high latitudes, resulting in a dramatic increase in harmful ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth's surface.21 These climatic changes would also exacerbate existing environmental issues like ocean acidification.20
Despite the significant climatic consequences predicted by these regional nuclear exchange studies, government interest in nuclear winter has largely remained low, and the science is acknowledged to be "fraught with uncertainties" that have undermined its acceptance.18 However, there is a recommendation for renewed policy consideration and sustained research to reduce these uncertainties.18
The disconnect between scientific consensus on catastrophe and policy prioritization is a critical concern. The report clearly states that nuclear winter is "potentially the most severe consequence of nuclear war" 18 and that even a "limited" exchange would lead to "catastrophic" global famine.20 Despite this scientific understanding, government interest in nuclear winter has "remained low".18 This highlights a critical gap between the scientific understanding of existential, non-linear risks and their integration into national strategic planning and policy formulation. It implies a failure to fully internalize the global, cascading, and long-term consequences of nuclear use, potentially leading to an underestimation of the true costs of nuclear conflict.
Food Security and Famine: The Devastating Impact on Global Sustenance
The environmental consequences of nuclear war would precipitate a global food crisis of unprecedented scale. Even a "limited" nuclear war would cause catastrophic drops in crop yields, marine fishery, and livestock production, leading to widespread global famine.20 Studies indicate that global average calories from crops would decrease by approximately 90% three to four years after a nuclear conflict.22 Even a 7% global yield decline would exceed the largest anomaly ever recorded since 1961, illustrating the profound fragility of global food systems.22 While the strongest percentage reductions would occur in high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere (e.g., 30-86% calorie reduction for nuclear-armed nations), lower latitudes would also experience significant impacts.22
Beyond the direct climatic impacts on agricultural production, the extreme fragility of modern food systems exacerbates the risk of famine. World food reserves are alarmingly small, amounting to only about two months' supply of cereals globally, and approximately one year's supply in the United States.23 A significant portion of these stores would be destroyed by blast or fire or contaminated by radioactivity.23 More critically, the complex transportation networks—roads, bridges, rail, and port facilities—essential for moving food from sites of harvest or storage to consumers would likely be destroyed or rendered non-functional due to lack of fuel.23 For example, in Massachusetts, over three-quarters of food arrives from out of state, with supplies lasting only a few days.23 The reliance on sophisticated agribusiness, encompassing farm machinery, pesticides, fertilizers, and processing plants (like grain elevators, slaughterhouses, and canning factories), would inevitably collapse.23 Without the means to harvest, process, and distribute surviving crops, widespread spoilage would occur.23 While historical research into "nuclear agriculture" explored the use of isotopes and radiation for peaceful purposes and food preservation, these efforts were not designed to sustain populations after a systemic collapse of global food systems.24
The extreme fragility of modern food systems in a post-nuclear environment is a critical factor. Beyond the direct climatic impacts on crop yields 20, the snippets reveal the profound vulnerability of the
entire modern food supply chain. The heavy reliance on long-distance transportation (trucks, rail), complex agribusiness networks (machinery, fuel, fertilizers, processing plants), and centralized storage 23 means that even if some crops miraculously survived the climatic changes, they could not be harvested, processed, or distributed to populations. This implies that global food security is not just a matter of agricultural production but an interconnected, highly specialized, and inherently fragile system that nuclear war would irrevocably shatter, leading to widespread famine even in areas far removed from direct detonations.
The global interconnectedness of nuclear war's environmental impacts transcends national borders. The research emphasizes that even a regional nuclear conflict, such as one between India and Pakistan, is modeled to cause a "near-global ozone hole" and "global climate disruption" 20, leading to global famine affecting most of Earth.22 This underscores that nuclear war is not a localized event with contained consequences. Its environmental and humanitarian impacts, such as atmospheric soot, temperature drops, and ozone depletion, would rapidly spread across the globe, affecting all nations regardless of their involvement in the conflict. This reinforces the concept that nuclear weapons pose an existential threat to all humanity, highlighting the shared, universal stake in preventing any nuclear use.
Furthermore, the long-term, cascading effects extend far beyond immediate blast and radiation. The "cooling would last for years" 21, ozone depletion for "at least a decade" 21, and severe calorie reductions for "3-4 years".22 This indicates that the suffering and societal breakdown would be prolonged, systemic, and multi-generational. This moves beyond a single catastrophic event to a multi-year, multi-faceted global catastrophe, leading to secondary and tertiary effects such as widespread disease, mass migrations, and the collapse of governance, demonstrating the true scale of the "unthinkable."
Global and Regional Food Security Impacts of Nuclear War Scenarios
20
Pathways to Mitigating Nuclear Risk and Enhancing Stability
Despite the alarming trends, several strategies and international initiatives offer pathways to mitigate nuclear risks and enhance global stability.
De-alerting Nuclear Forces: Benefits and Feasibility
De-alerting involves introducing reversible physical changes to nuclear weapons or weapon systems to lengthen the time required for their use in combat.25 This measure offers significant benefits for national security by reducing the risk of accidental or deliberate use stemming from false warnings, without negatively impacting a nation's deterrence posture.25 It can also rapidly implement existing nuclear arms control agreements ahead of schedule.25
Practical de-alerting measures include placing large, visible barriers on missile silo lids, removing or altering firing switches, detaching batteries, gyroscopes, or guidance mechanisms, or storing warheads separately from missiles in monitored locations.25 A successful historical precedent is the 1991 US and Soviet Presidential Nuclear Initiatives, which resulted in the de-alerting of strategic bombers and the storage of their nuclear weapons, alongside the early retirement of ICBMs.25 This process led to the deepest reductions in nuclear arsenals to date, demonstrating that de-alerting can occur rapidly if sufficient political will exists, often requiring negotiations and verification procedures for symmetrical force reductions.25
The strategic value of de-alerting extends beyond numerical reductions. While traditional arms control focuses on numerical limits, de-alerting directly addresses the operational readiness of forces.25 By increasing the time required for launch, de-alerting significantly reduces the risk of accidental or mistaken use stemming from false warnings 25, a critical concern in an age of compressed decision times due to emerging technologies. The historical precedent of US and Soviet de-alerting in 1991 25 demonstrates its feasibility and effectiveness without undermining deterrence.26 This suggests that de-alerting offers a pragmatic, confidence-building measure that can enhance stability even in the absence of broader, legally binding arms control agreements.
No-First-Use (NFU) Policies: Debates, Benefits, and Challenges
A No-First-Use (NFU) policy is a declaration by a nuclear-armed state that it will not use nuclear weapons first in a conflict, reserving the right to retaliate only in response to a nuclear attack.27 The adoption of NFU offers several compelling benefits: it reduces the risk of nuclear conflict by decreasing the likelihood of miscalculation or unintended escalation, enhances stability by reducing incentives for pre-emptive strikes, and promotes broader disarmament and non-proliferation efforts.27 Currently, China and India have declared NFU policies.27
However, the implementation of NFU faces significant challenges. Other nuclear-armed states, particularly the United States, Russia, and France, have been reluctant to adopt NFU due to concerns about security, deterrence, and the need to balance NFU with extended deterrence commitments to allies.27 The US 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), for instance, expanded the circumstances under which the United States would consider using nuclear weapons first.28 Allies, such as Japan, have expressed concerns that adopting NFU might weaken the perceived American commitment to their defense.28 NFU can be implemented unilaterally or multilaterally, with multilateral agreements generally providing more stability and predictability.27
The complex interplay of NFU, extended deterrence, and alliance commitments is a key consideration. While NFU policies offer clear benefits for reducing escalation risk and promoting stability 27, the US experience highlights a significant challenge: the concerns of allies like Japan 28 that NFU might weaken perceived American security commitments (extended deterrence). This indicates that adopting NFU is not merely a unilateral declaratory policy but has profound implications for alliance cohesion and strategic confidence. Successful implementation would require careful diplomatic engagement and robust reassurance measures to prevent unintended destabilization of alliances, underscoring the deep political complexities involved in such a shift.
Controlling Emerging Technologies: The Case for ASAT Bans and AI Governance
The proliferation and testing of anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons pose a significant threat to space security and global stability. Destructive ASAT tests, such as those conducted by India in 2019 and Russia in 2021, create long-lived orbital debris, increasing the risk of in-orbit collisions and the potential for misunderstanding and miscalculation that could lead to conflict.29 In response, the United States announced a voluntary destructive ASAT test ban in 2022, an initiative that has garnered support from a growing number of nations.30 The UN General Assembly also adopted a resolution calling upon states "not to conduct destructive direct-ascent anti-satellite missile tests".30
Despite these efforts, challenges remain. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits the placement of nuclear weapons in space but lacks restrictions on other types of weapons.29 Russia and China have opposed broader bans, such as their proposed Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space (PPWT), due to concerns that such bans might restrict their missile defense capabilities.29 Moving forward, there is an urgent need for verification of legally binding arms control measures in space, and unilateral moratoriums by key states could help build momentum.29
The urgency of norm-setting and regulation in space to prevent a new arms race is paramount. The US voluntary ASAT test ban 30 and the UN resolution 30 signal a growing international recognition of the destabilizing effects of ASAT tests, particularly the creation of orbital debris.29 The absence of existing legally binding restrictions on non-nuclear weapons in space 29 creates a dangerous vacuum that emerging counterspace technologies can exploit. The resistance from Russia and China to broader bans 29 highlights the difficulty of achieving comprehensive agreements. This situation underscores an urgent need for international norm-setting and legally binding measures to prevent an arms race in outer space, which could have catastrophic implications for critical civilian and military infrastructure, thereby impacting global strategic stability.
Regarding AI governance in nuclear command and control, a crucial consensus has emerged: AI should never be empowered to make the decision to launch a nuclear war, as agreed by US and Chinese leaders.11 While international agreements to limit AI in nuclear contexts are difficult to achieve due to verification challenges, nations can mitigate risks from their own AI use.10 This involves focusing on lower-risk applications that allow for human review, have clear evaluation criteria, can be isolated if they fail, and include robust mitigation mechanisms.10
The Role of International Cooperation and Disarmament Initiatives
The United Nations has played a central role in multilateral disarmament and arms limitation efforts since its inception, consistently prioritizing the reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons.31 Key international instruments include the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).31
A recent significant development is the UN's "Pact for the Future," which explicitly recommits to the goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons, affirming that "a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought".32 This pact emphasizes the imperative to avoid an arms race and strengthen the disarmament and non-proliferation architecture.32 The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also plays a vital role through its nuclear safeguards, deterring the diversion of nuclear material and ensuring nuclear technology is used exclusively for peaceful purposes.31
The enduring relevance of multilateral institutions amidst bilateral decline is a significant observation. Despite the alarming decline of bilateral arms control, particularly with New START nearing its expiration, multilateral institutions like the United Nations and its associated treaties (NPT, CTBT, TPNW) continue to strongly advocate for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.31 The "Pact for the Future" 32 explicitly reiterates the commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons and the imperative to avoid an arms race. This indicates a persistent, broader international will for disarmament that exists independently of, and often in tension with, the actions of individual nuclear-armed states. This highlights the continued importance of multilateral diplomacy as a platform for sustained pressure, norm-setting, and exploring alternative pathways to peace and security, even when bilateral relations are strained.
Strategies for Nuclear Risk Reduction and Stability Enhancement
Conclusion: Charting a Course Towards a More Secure Future
The global community stands at a perilous crossroads, marked by a clear and concerning reversal of post-Cold War nuclear arms reductions. The world is entering a new, more dangerous nuclear era, characterized by the expansion and modernization of arsenals across nearly all nuclear-armed states, most notably China's rapid build-up. This trend is exacerbated by the alarming erosion of foundational arms control frameworks, particularly the New START Treaty, which is nearing its expiration without a clear successor. The resulting decline in transparency and communication between major nuclear powers significantly increases the potential for an unconstrained arms race and dangerous miscalculations.
Compounding these traditional challenges are the unprecedented risks introduced by emerging technologies. The integration of Artificial Intelligence, hypersonic weapons, and cyber capabilities into strategic systems compresses decision-making timelines to mere minutes, blurs the critical distinction between conventional and nuclear conflict, and creates novel pathways for accidental or inadvertent escalation. The synergistic effect of these advancements creates a highly compressed, opaque, and potentially error-prone decision-making environment, placing immense pressure on human leaders in a crisis.
The potential consequences of any nuclear conflict, even a limited regional exchange, are catastrophic and global in scale. Scientific models consistently predict a "nuclear winter" scenario, leading to a drastic global cooling, widespread ozone depletion, and, most critically, a systemic collapse of global food production and distribution networks, resulting in widespread famine for years. This underscores that nuclear war is not a localized event with contained consequences; it is an existential threat to all humankind, regardless of direct involvement. The current disconnect between this scientific understanding of global catastrophe and its prioritization in policy formulation is a profound concern.
The current trajectory is unsustainable and demands immediate and concerted international action. As the United Nations' "Pact for the Future" unequivocally states, "a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought".32 Charting a course towards a more secure future requires a multi-faceted approach. This includes pursuing pragmatic risk reduction measures such as de-alerting nuclear forces, which can significantly reduce the likelihood of accidental use without undermining deterrence. It also necessitates a robust debate and potential adoption of no-first-use policies, carefully balancing their benefits for de-escalation with alliance security commitments.
Furthermore, urgent international norm-setting and regulation are critical for emerging technologies, particularly for anti-satellite weapons to prevent an arms race in outer space, and for establishing clear guidelines for AI's role in nuclear command and control to ensure meaningful human oversight. Despite the setbacks in bilateral arms control, the enduring relevance of multilateral institutions and their associated treaties remains vital for sustaining global norms against nuclear weapons and providing a platform for comprehensive disarmament efforts.31
Ultimately, preventing nuclear catastrophe and charting a course towards a more secure and stable future for generations to come requires renewed political will, trust-building initiatives, and innovative diplomacy. The shared responsibility of all nations to navigate this complex nuclear landscape and avert the unthinkable has never been more urgent.
Works cited
SIPRI report highlights growing nuclear threat as modernisation accelerates and arms control weakens - Defence Industry Europe, accessed June 30, 2025, https://defence-industry.eu/sipri-report-highlights-growing-nuclear-threat-as-modernisation-accelerates-and-arms-control-weakens/
Status of World Nuclear Forces - Federation of American Scientists, accessed June 30, 2025, https://fas.org/initiative/status-world-nuclear-forces/
India has more nukes than Pakistan, China far ahead: SIPRI report | Current Affairs, accessed June 30, 2025, https://visionias.in/current-affairs/upsc-daily-news-summary/article/2025-06-17/the-indian-express/international-relations/india-has-more-nukes-than-pakistan-china-far-ahead-sipri-report-1
Countries with nuclear weapons - ICAN, accessed June 30, 2025, https://www.icanw.org/nuclear_arsenals
The Clock Is Ticking on New START Expiration—and a Nuclear Arms Race - The Equation, accessed June 30, 2025, https://blog.ucs.org/tara-drozdenko/the-clock-is-ticking-on-new-start-expiration-and-a-nuclear-arms-race/
The Future of Arms Control: What Follows the End of New START?, accessed June 30, 2025, https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/the-future-of-arms-control-what-follows-the-end-of-new-start/
New START Treaty - United States Department of State, accessed June 30, 2025, https://www.state.gov/new-start-treaty
New START - Wikipedia, accessed June 30, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START
New START Treaty, accessed June 30, 2025, https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/treaty-between-the-united-states-of-america-and-the-russian-federation-on-measures-for-the-further-reduction-and-limitation-of-strategic-offensive-arms/
Artificial Intelligence and Nuclear Weapons: A Commonsense Approach to Understanding Costs and Benefits - Texas National Security Review, accessed June 30, 2025, https://tnsr.org/2025/06/artificial-intelligence-and-nuclear-weapons-a-commonsense-approach-to-understanding-costs-and-benefits/
How unchecked AI could trigger a nuclear war - Brookings Institution, accessed June 30, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-unchecked-ai-could-trigger-a-nuclear-war/
FAQ: Will AI increase the risk of nuclear war? - ICAN, accessed June 30, 2025, https://www.icanw.org/faq_ai_nuclear_weapons
On Integrating Artificial Intelligence With Nuclear Control | Arms Control Association, accessed June 30, 2025, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2022-09/features/integrating-artificial-intelligence-nuclear-control
Hypersonic Weapons: Are We Entering a New Era of Vulnerability? - Global Security Review, accessed June 30, 2025, https://globalsecurityreview.com/hypersonic-weapons-are-we-entering-a-new-era-of-vulnerability/
Hypersonic Weapons: Fast, Furious…and Futile? - RUSI, accessed June 30, 2025, https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/rusi-newsbrief/hypersonic-weapons-fast-furiousand-futile
Cyberattacks on U.S. Infrastructure May Be Blowback from U.S. Strike on Iran - HilltopSecurities, accessed June 30, 2025, https://www.hilltopsecurities.com/municipal_commentary/cyberattacks-on-u-s-infrastructure-may-be-blowback-from-u-s-strike-on-iran/
DHS expects Iran's cyber forces will target US networks after strikes on nuclear sites, accessed June 30, 2025, https://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2025/06/dhs-expects-irans-cyber-forces-will-target-us-networks-after-strikes-nuclear-sites/406214/
Whatever Happened to Nuclear Winter?, accessed June 30, 2025, https://www.jhuapl.edu/sites/default/files/2024-10/NuclearWinter-WEB.pdf
Potential Environmental Effects of Nuclear War — New Report | National Academies, accessed June 30, 2025, https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2025/06/potential-environmental-effects-of-nuclear-war-new-report
What would nuclear war do to our natural environment? - ICAN, accessed June 30, 2025, https://www.icanw.org/what_would_nuclear_war_do_to_our_natural_environment
Nuclear winter - Wikipedia, accessed June 30, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
(PDF) Global Famine after Nuclear War - ResearchGate, accessed June 30, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354453816_Global_Famine_after_Nuclear_War
Food and Nutrition in the Aftermath of Nuclear War - NCBI, accessed June 30, 2025, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219173/
how the politics of the Cold War shaped agricultural research using isotopes and radiation in post war divided Germany, accessed June 30, 2025, https://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0211-95362015000200003
De-alerting - Wikipedia, accessed June 30, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-alerting
DE-ALERT U.S. NUCLEAR ICBMs - Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, accessed June 30, 2025, https://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/De-alert-US-nuclear-weapons.pdf
The Future of Nuclear Deterrence: No-First-Use Revisited - Number Analytics, accessed June 30, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/future-nuclear-deterrence-no-first-use
No First Use and Credible Deterrence - Taylor & Francis Online, accessed June 30, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25751654.2018.1454257
A Small Step Toward an ASAT Ban | Arms Control Association, accessed June 30, 2025, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2021-12/focus/small-step-toward-asat-ban
Moving beyond an ASAT Testing Ban - Air University, accessed June 30, 2025, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AEtherJournal/Journals/Volume-3_Number-4/Townsend_.pdf
Disarmament - the United Nations, accessed June 30, 2025, https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/disarmament
Pact for the Future, Global Digital Compact and Declaration on Future Generations - United Nations Sustainable Development Group, accessed June 30, 2025, https://unsdg.un.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/sotf-pact_for_the_future_adopted.pdf
Comments
Post a Comment