New START Treaty Expiry Sparks Fears of Unchecked Nuclear Arms Race

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker believes that the treaty, signed in 2010, was "negotiated in a bygone era" and no longer reflects today's threat environment. He said Russia's suspension of compliance and China's rapid military expansion had fundamentally altered the strategic landscape.

"Fifteen years after the treaty was signed, we face an assortment of threats far more complicated and dangerous than anyone foresaw in 2010," Wicker said during a Congressional hearing this week, pointing to Russia's nuclear production capacity and China's rapidly growing arsenal.

Ranking Member Jack Reed warned that the lapse of New START would leave Washington and Moscow without any binding framework governing nuclear forces for the first time in more than five decades. "For the first time in 54 years, the United States and Russia will have no binding framework to regulate our respective nuclear forces," he said.

According to Reed, public reporting indicated Russia had continued to observe the treaty's central limits despite suspending inspections, but cautioned that an unconstrained arms race would serve neither side's interests. He also warned that China was moving rapidly toward nuclear parity. "Experts predict Beijing could acquire approximately 1,500 warheads in the next several years," he said.

The hearing underscored growing divisions over whether Washington should seek to preserve elements of New START or move decisively beyond it. Former US Strategic Command commander Admiral Charles Richard said arms control could enhance deterrence only if it included all parties, all weapons and effective verification.

"I would not recommend a one-year extension to the New START Treaty absent verification procedures being reinstated," Richard said, adding that any future agreement should, at a minimum, include the United States, Russia, and China.

Former US arms control negotiator Rose Gottemoeller argued that deterrence and arms control were not opposites but "enjoy a symbiotic relationship."

She told lawmakers that negotiated limits created predictability, which in turn strengthened deterrence. Gottemoeller supported extending New START limits for a year to prevent a rapid Russian nuclear "upload" while Washington prepared to address China's buildup.

"It does not serve US national security interests to have to address the Chinese nuclear buildup while simultaneously facing a rapid Russian upload campaign," she said, warning that refusing an extension could hand Moscow an "easy diplomatic win."

Timothy Morrison, a former White House national security official, rejected that approach, calling New START a "bad deal" that constrained the United States more than Russia and ignored large portions of Moscow's arsenal. He said arms control should be a tool of competition, not an end in itself, and argued that Washington needed the ability to respond quickly to violations.

Several senators raised concerns about nuclear proliferation beyond the major powers. Reed warned that resuming US nuclear testing could encourage others to follow suit. "Resuming tests would simply encourage our adversaries to close their own technological gaps and would give India, Pakistan and North Korea justification to resume their programs," he said.

Gottemoeller echoed that assessment, saying a return to explosive testing by the United States would likely be matched by Russia and China and could also prompt India and Pakistan to test again.

The debate among others highlighted anxieties among US allies, particularly in Europe and the Indo-Pacific, over the credibility of extended nuclear deterrence. Reed said allies were "reexamining their nuclear policies" amid uncertainty about US commitments, raising the risk of further proliferation.

- IANS