The US’ retention of its nuclear superiority vis-à-vis China is non-negotiable, so it’ll either unilaterally maintain its existing edge outside of strategic arms control pacts or institutionalize it through a new such pact involving China.
A global nuclear arms race is possible after Trump let the New START, the hitherto last remaining strategic arms control pact between Russia and the US, lapse despite Putin’s proposal to extend it for another year. He wrote on social media that “Rather than extend “NEW START” (A badly negotiated deal by the United States that, aside from everything else, is being grossly violated), we should have our Nuclear Experts work on a new, improved, and modernized Treaty that can last long into the future.”
Any new strategic arms control pact between Russia and the US hinges on China’s participation, however, recalling that Trump called for precisely this during his first term. That policy is still in effect as proven by Secretary of State Marco Rubio declaring on the eve of the New START’s expiry that “[Trump] has been clear in the past that in order to have true arms control in the 21st century, it’s impossible to do something that doesn’t include China because of their vast and rapidly growing stockpile.”
It’s therefore likely that Putin discussed this with Xi during their videoconference right Trump let that agreement lapse. Nevertheless, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the next day that “Our Chinese friends take the position that their nuclear potential is incomparable with that of the United States and Russia, and therefore they do not want to participate in negotiations on this issue, considering it inappropriate. We respect this position.” This is a reaffirmation of Russia’s consistent stance on the issue.
Be that as it may, Rubio is right in remarking upon China’s “rapidly growing stockpile”, which the Department of War’s latest annual report to Congress about that country makes clear. According to them, “China’s stockpile of nuclear warheads remained in the low 600s through 2024, reflecting a slower rate of production when compared to previous years. Despite this slowdown, the PLA has continued its massive nuclear expansion.”
They importantly added that, “While this report assessed in 2020 that China’s nuclear warhead would double from a stockpile of the low 200s over the next decade, the PLA remains on track to have over 1,000 warheads by 2030”, or quintupling its estimated nuclear stockpile in just a single decade. The approximately 800 more warheads that it’s expected to have by 2030 equates to an average of 80 new nukes a year, which is more than North Korea’s entire stockpile (~50) and slightly less than Israel’s (~90).
The New START that just expired restricted Russia and the US to 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads at any given time, the number of which China is on pace to reach by 2035 at its current rate. If it begins building them faster than one every 4.5 days, then this could happen even sooner, and China could then be emboldened to more assertively push back against its US-led regional containment. In order to preempt that, the US might deploy more nukes, build more, and/or help Japan and/or South Korea develop nukes.
Therein lies the reason why Trump let the New START lapse since the first two options aren’t possible without releasing the US from its restrictions and they’re much more manageable than proliferating nuclear weapons technology to its East Asian allies. The US’ retention of its nuclear superiority vis-à-vis China is non-negotiable, so it’ll either unilaterally maintain its existing edge outside of strategic arms control pacts or institutionalize it through a new such pact involving China.
For an opener: Deal or no deal I refuse to believe the US, or Russia was ever living by the letter of the Strategic Arms Control Pact. The only rational policy concerning numbers of nuclear warheads for a nation is established on the basis of an end of the line, final conflict scenario where agreements are meaningless. Furthermore, I do not believe that US, Israeli, Chinese or Russian warhead productions can be tracked effectively. Any of these nations can stock and hide all the necessary materials in underground locations and assemble nuclear warheads there ready to be used. The workers participating in operations like this are highly controlled and do not have a full overview, meaning they have no idea of the overall production rate.
On the other hand I fully realize the necessity for control and reduction of nuclear arms but it can be organized only on a ‘trust but verify’ platform.
The most important risk factor for nuclear war presently is the mindless pursuit of world domination in a multipolar geopolitical reality.
In addition: It is also a fact that the international oligarchic class, elements in the Western political leadership and a certain ethnic/racial minority of the planet are openly pursuing/planning an extermination program on a planetary scale, presently without any meaningful opposition.
I totally agree that any arms control agreement is meaningless without China. The Russian position is understandable, but somewhat disingenuous: it’s not so much about how many actual warheads a particular geopolitical entity has, but its ability to field them strategically. Thus NK and Israel are problematic, but for slightly different reasons than guaranteeing total mutually assured destruction. China, on the other hand, already presents a credible MAD threat, which couldn’t be neutralised by a massive first strike the same way Israel’s or North Korea’s could. In short, China and Russia are stuck in a de facto alliance with each other whether they like it or not.