Nuclear Arms Treaty Expires Amid Rising Global Tensions

The world is waking up to a new and uncertain nuclear reality. On February 5, 2026, the New START treaty—the last remaining nuclear arms reduction agreement between the United States and Russia—officially expired, according to EFE and AGERPRES. Signed in 2010 and extended in 2021 for five additional years, the treaty had set strict limits on the size and deployment of the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals. Its expiration, however, has left those limitations in limbo, with global security experts and political leaders now facing a landscape with fewer checks and balances on nuclear weapons.

The New START treaty had capped each side at 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads and 800 launch systems, with no more than 700 deployed launchers across land, sea, and air. The agreement was considered a cornerstone of global arms control, but its stability began to falter when Russia suspended its participation on February 21, 2023. Moscow’s decision, as reported by EFE, was motivated by U.S. transfers of long-range weaponry to Ukraine—arms which Russia claimed were used against its strategic bases. This move effectively halted Western inspections of Russian nuclear facilities and signaled the beginning of the end for the treaty’s regulatory power.

The numbers alone are staggering. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), as of early 2025, the world’s nine nuclear-armed states possess approximately 12,241 nuclear warheads. Of these, 9,614 are considered potentially operational, and more than 3,900 are deployed—meaning they are ready for use at a moment’s notice. Even more sobering, about 2,100 of those are kept on high alert atop ballistic missiles.

The United States and Russia together control 87% of the world’s nuclear weapons. The U.S. currently deploys 1,770 nuclear warheads and holds another 1,930 in reserve, for a total of 3,700 warheads, with a grand total inventory—including retired warheads—of 5,177. Russia, for its part, has 1,718 deployed warheads and 2,591 in reserve, with a total inventory of 5,459. These figures underscore the enduring dominance of these two countries in the nuclear arena, despite decades of arms reduction efforts.

Other nuclear powers, while possessing much smaller arsenals, still contribute to the global calculus. The United Kingdom maintains 225 warheads, with 120 deployed primarily on Trident and Vanguard-class submarines. France, now the European Union’s sole nuclear power following Brexit, has 290 warheads—280 deployed and 10 in reserve. China, meanwhile, is estimated to have 600 warheads, but only 24 are deployed and the rest remain in reserve. India possesses 180 warheads, Pakistan 170, North Korea 50, and Israel 90, according to SIPRI data reported by AGERPRES.

These numbers, while precise, only tell part of the story. The history of nuclear weapons is marked by both caution and catastrophe. The United States conducted over a thousand nuclear tests between 1945 and the present and remains the only nation to have used atomic bombs in war—the devastating attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 that killed more than 200,000 people. Russia (and before it, the Soviet Union) has conducted over 200 tests since 1957. The United Kingdom, France, and China followed suit with their own tests, each marking a new chapter in the nuclear age.

It’s not just about numbers or history, though. The expiration of New START comes at a time of heightened tensions and ongoing conflict in Eastern Europe. According to the Financial Times and Kyiv Post, Ukraine and its Western allies have developed a rapid military response plan in case Russia violates a potential armistice. This plan, discussed repeatedly in December 2025 and January 2026 among Ukrainian, European, and American officials, would see a diplomatic warning issued within 24 hours of any breach. If violations continued, Ukrainian forces would be authorized to act. Should hostilities persist further, a so-called “Coalition of the Willing”—including EU members, the UK, Norway, Iceland, and Turkey—would intervene. In the event of a broader escalation, a coordinated Western-backed military response, with U.S. participation, would be triggered within 72 hours of the initial violation.

Negotiators from Ukraine, Russia, and the U.S. are scheduled to meet in Abu Dhabi on February 11 and 12, 2026, in a fresh attempt to end the war that has already claimed tens of thousands of lives and displaced millions. The stakes couldn’t be higher. As the Financial Times noted, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine has wrought destruction across the country’s east and south, forcing millions from their homes and killing untold numbers.

The shadow of nuclear weapons looms large over these diplomatic efforts. Since the late 1960s, the U.S. and Russia (then the Soviet Union) have engaged in talks to limit their nuclear arsenals, starting with the SALT-1 agreement in 1972, which for the first time capped the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Yet, as the world now witnesses, treaties can expire or be suspended, and the absence of binding agreements can quickly lead to uncertainty and mistrust.

It’s not just the U.S. and Russia that have charted a nuclear course. The United Kingdom was the third nation to conduct nuclear tests, beginning in 1952 on Australia’s Montebello Islands. France followed in 1960 with a test in the Sahara, then a French colony, and continued until 1996, when it ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). China began its own tests in 1964 and has been accused by the U.S. of transferring nuclear technology to countries like Pakistan, Libya, Iran, and Syria in the 1990s. India, Pakistan, and Israel have never signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and North Korea withdrew from the treaty in 2003.

The end of New START has revived calls for a new, modernized agreement. According to AFP and Reuters, former U.S. President Donald Trump stated, “Rather than extend ‘New START’ (...) we should have our nuclear experts work on a new, improved, and modernized treaty with Russia.” The sentiment is echoed by many arms control advocates and security analysts who warn that the absence of such agreements could trigger a new arms race or, worse, a catastrophic miscalculation.

As the world faces the reality of unregulated nuclear arsenals and the ongoing threat of war in Ukraine, the urgency for renewed diplomacy and robust arms control has never been greater. The coming weeks and months will test the resolve of global leaders to find new pathways to peace and security—before the absence of limits becomes a permanent feature of the nuclear age.