The Trump administration's decision to declare an end to the New START treaty has closed the last chapter of Cold War-era nuclear diplomacy. Amy J. Nelson and Michael E. O'Hanlon, both senior fellows at the Brookings Institution, have warned that the frameworks designed to manage a two-superpower standoff no longer match the strategic reality the United States faces today.
The scholars laid out their case in a detailed analysis for the Brookings Institution, as reported by "Hvylya".
The traditional arms control model, Nelson and O'Hanlon wrote, "rested on reciprocal, legally binding numerical limits between two near-equal nuclear superpowers." That structure assumed Washington and Moscow were rough equals with a stable negotiating position. But the world has changed. China and Russia are now strategically aligned, and Beijing is building nuclear weapons at a pace that could upend decades of assumptions about the global balance of power.
Beyond geopolitical shifts, the strategic environment is being reshaped by technology. Advancements in missile defense systems, the proliferation of drones, and the spread of shorter-range strike capabilities have all complicated the old calculus. With New START now defunct, the authors argue it is time to rethink arms control from first principles. Clinging to a model designed for a vanished world, they say, is no longer an option.
Nelson and O'Hanlon acknowledged that the current political environment is not conducive to treaty-making. But they warned that the absence of any framework risks turning worst-case planning into an engine of unrestrained competition. "Managing uncertainty is not a retreat from arms control but a step toward its renewal," they wrote, calling for a shift from binding ceilings to structured transparency.
The United States currently deploys roughly 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads under the limits that New START once imposed. Without a successor agreement, that number is now unconstrained for the first time since the early 1970s.
"Hvylya" earlier reported on why Europe's new missile race makes the Cold War competition look simple.