To many, the end of the Cold War signaled hope for a more restrained nuclear era. As the rivalry between the US and USSR settled in the early 1990s, the imperative for the two states to expand their nuclear arsenals also decreased. During the same period, global efforts to restrict nuclear proliferation accelerated. In 1991 South Africa became the only country, ever, to voluntarily dismantle its nuclear weapons program before they joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), highlighting what was to be a new nuclear era. There were drawbacks, such as Indian and Pakistani nuclear development and testing in 1998, and North Korea’s 2003 withdrawal from the NPT and later demonstration of nuclear weapon technology. However, until recently, nuclear threats and coercion have been largely restrained. 

In parallel, civilian nuclear energy has followed a similar trajectory. Although there was initial enthusiasm for a fossil-fuel-free alternative to meet global energy demands, momentum behind nuclear power waned after the Fukushima disaster in 2011. The incident involved a devastating tsunami that shed light on the inherent risks of civil nuclear programs and led governments worldwide to reassess their nuclear energy ambitions. Almost immediately afterward, Germany, accelerated its Energiewende program, shifting the state’s energy infrastructure away from nuclear power and toward renewable wind and solar energy, while Switzerland abandoned its plans to build new reactors. 

Now, the era of restraint appears to be waning. In February 2026, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the last binding agreement limiting the US and Russia’s nuclear arsenals, expired and brought a formal end to the post-Cold-War arms control regime. That same year, the US signed a landmark civil nuclear agreement with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), giving it a path toward domestic uranium enrichment. While noteworthy on its own, a less discussed aspect of the agreement is what it represents. States are beginning to shift their attitudes toward use of nuclear technologies once again. 

Developments in recent years further support this shift. In 2026, Japan restarted its largest nuclear power station, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, for the first time since the Fukushima accident, while China approved a new five-year plan, aiming to increase its nuclear power capacity from 62.5 gigawatts to 110 gigawatts by 2030. Similarly, India finalized a long-term uranium supply deal with Canada’s Cameco and reached an agreement to expand uranium exports from Australia after years of hesitation over proliferation risks. These developments contrast with the expectations decades ago. Rising energy costs due to increased energy demands, including increased demands for data centers and rapid industrial growth in Asia, have indeed contributed greatly to this renewed interest in nuclear power. 

Energy production holds increased geopolitical dimensions that cannot be ignored. Recent conflicts highlight the downsides of interdependence on fossil fuel resources. The 2022 Russia-Ukraine war effected energy prices in response to reduced transportation and risks. States had to confront their import dependence in a volatile geopolitical climate. The need for self-reliance and alternative energy resources became further stressed with the US-Iran conflict, in which oil shipment disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz negatively affected entire state economies. 

Many Middle Eastern governments are now reassessing their reliance on external security guarantees as neighboring conflicts become potential threats and there are concerns about US limitations in protecting allies. These raise doubts about relying solely on US assurances. This may prompt regional powers to pursue independent nuclear deterrents or latent nuclear power production capabilities. 

In this context, the distinction between pursuing civilian and military nuclear programs becomes blurry. Nuclear technology is inherently dual-use. The same centrifuges used to enrich uranium  to 3-5 percent U-235 for civilian reactors can also be used to produce weapons-grade uranium, at around 90 percent U-235. Additionally, spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors can be reprocessed to extract plutonium for weapons. Although reaching weapons-grade enrichment is no easy task, the greatest technical challenge largely lies in developing the initial enrichment infrastructure. 

As a result, states that can acquire domestic enrichment capabilities automatically possess nuclear latency, the ability to develop nuclear weapons relatively quickly should a political decision be made. “A key example is India’s 1974 ‘peaceful nuclear explosion,’ which relied on plutonium produced in a Canadian-supplied civilian research reactor. 

Although the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) exists to prevent civilian-military expansion. However, recent actions have caused concerns about the IAEA becoming politically contentious. In June 2025, the Agency found Iran non-compliant with safeguards but later acknowledged Iran lacked a structured nuclear weapons program. This seeming ambiguity led in part to Israel’s strikes on Iranian facilities, and raised questions about the IAEA’s entanglement with geopolitical interests. In the Middle East, Israel is the region’s only potential nuclear-armed state despite not signing the NPT. This, along with US nuclear rhetoric, suggests that nuclear rules are unclear and that nuclear capability makes strategic autonomy complex.  

The case of Ukraine offers another warning. After surrendering the nuclear weapons it inherited from the USSR, Ukraine joined the NPT in return for security assurances under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Russia’s subsequent annexation of Crimea in 2014 and full-scale invasion in 2022 have inevitably weakened confidence in such assurances. How this would have played out if Ukraine did have nuclear weapons is unknown, but it does support the argument that external guarantees may ultimately be less reliable than an independent deterrent. 

Thus, while recent developments point to a renewed interest in nuclear technologies, whether this shift will ultimately translate into latent or breakout capabilities remains to be seen. What is already clear, however, is the strategic paradox confronting many states. On the one hand, 21st century conflicts have reinforced the value of a nuclear deterrent as a means of ensuring long-term security. On the other, the experiences of Iraq and Iran illustrate how even the perception of an emerging nuclear weapons program can trigger military and/or economic responses. In this sense, not possessing a nuclear program may leave a state vulnerable, yet attempting to acquire one may also make it a target for economic sanctions or worse. 

If the international system were genuinely consistent and capable of providing equal security, the incentives for nuclear proliferation would be far weaker. However, as it stands, the system remains unequal and is ultimately shaped by power. Until that changes, nuclear arms will continue to appear to states as insurance against an international order they do not fully trust. The real question, therefore, is whether that order can convince states that they are safer without a nuclear weapons program. 

Sajal Shahid is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS) Islamabad, conducting research on South Asian security. Her work has been published on national and international platforms, including Green Network Asia, The Independent Singapore, Fair Observer, and Modern Diplomacy. She can be reached at cassthinkers@casstt.com. Views expressed in this article are the author’s own. 

The Return of Nuclear Hedging was originally published on Global Security Review.

ICBM EAR Report for 22 Feb 2025 was originally published on Global Security Review.

Arms control and disarmament advocates differ with this view, seeing the deterrent as a risk that must be reduced in size and function via various forms of diplomacy that range from one-party declarations and codes of conduct to formal arms control agreements. These sorts of undertakings are currently moribund within officialdom, though enjoying an eternal spring of hope among the single-issue think tanks, academics, and commentators who strive to sway government.

Paradoxically the current surge in hostilities between the United States and the axis of autocracy (China, North Korea, and Russia) could furnish the spark that revives official efforts at both improving deterrence and renewed arms control. For instance, an updated Budapest Memorandum might form one component of a settlement or freezing of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. An Iranian “regime change” may also offer a path for a true and verifiable non-nuclear-weapon Iran.

The modality of any future arms control arrangement could vary greatly. Not all arms control arrangements are treaties. Given the current international situation among nuclear-armed states, treaties might indeed be the least likely of modalities. Some modalities that future arms control arrangements could take include unilateral American declarations, American-backed codes of conduct, American-backed norms, agreement within NATO (such as the Committee on Proliferation or the Nuclear Planning Group), unilateral American renewal of earlier Negative Security Assurances (such as those deposited with the United Nations), bilateral or multilateral statements, bilateral or multilateral memorandum or other agreed instrument short of a treaty, and/or bilateral or multilateral treaties.

The Process of Arms Control

All these arms control approaches present challenges to American and NATO forces. They also present opportunities to refine force posture and employment options. Three concrete steps are useful in ensuring American and alliance leadership receives constant feedback with operational decision-makers.

First, it is important to sustain collaboration. As government and American allies contemplate arms control arrangements, nuclear-force commanders should offer information on the challenges and opportunities that various permutations of an arrangement present to force posture and operations. Not all ideas are operationally possible.

Second, highlight the challenges that an arrangement poses to fielded forces. As part of any discussions, commanders should relate how they would adjust operations as nascent arrangements move toward implementation. This would likely be a stepwise evolution of operations in reaction to implementation of disclosures and intrusion that could accompany various forms of arms control measures. Policymakers rarely understand what their aspirational objectives mean for operational forces.

Third, highlight opportunities an arrangement creates for forces. Similarly, commanders should monitor the evolution of arms control arrangements and be on the lookout for arrangements that permit gleaning information about adversary forces—information that is useful in crafting the best force posture, plans, and operational tactics.

These feedback loops would evolve in phases over the time that an arms control arrangement is contemplated, refined, and implemented (or rejected).

The Phases of Arms Control

Any future arms control agreement should have six phases:

Phase 1 takes place during internal American contemplation of potential arms control arrangements. Classified analysis of changes to operations that an arrangement might necessitate are discussed. When inspections are proposed, any detrimental effects to operations from various forms of inspection are discussed. Discussing the benefits of inspecting adversary installations is also an important consideration. 

Phase 2 occurs during outreach with adversaries and third-country parties. Internal “food-for-thought” papers from the operational community are prepared for negotiators and strategic-communications personnel. Deliberate public statements such as editorials and conference presentations serve a useful purpose in explaining American interests.  

Phase 3 takes place during formalization of an arms control arrangement. When requested by the Department of Defense, Department of State, National Security Council, the president, or other officials, public statements are made for adversary consumption. 

Phase 4 is the implementation phase. This is the period in which an arms control arrangement comes into effect by treaty agreement or as a unilateral/bilateral/multilateral action. Classified reports on implementation progress of the new arrangement are prepared. When inspections are part of the arrangement, coordination between government agencies occurs.

Phase 5 is focused on sustainment. During this period an arms control arrangement is in effect. Classified reports address difficulties from the arrangement. 

Phase 6 is the sunset period. This is when the arms control arrangement ends or appears to be faltering. Analysis of the operational steps, timeline, costs, equipment, and personnel necessary to terminate the arms control arrangement is conducted. Classified reports on progress toward ceasing any earlier changes to operations and capabilities, necessitated by the arrangement, are conducted.

Conclusion

Arms control for the sake of arms control was always a bad idea. The United States is no longer in a position where it can enter into arms control agreements because it furthers an idealist ambition to promote peace. Today, arms control is only useful if it furthers American interests.

Taking a hard-nosed look at arms control in its various forms is necessary, but it must be acceptable for the answer to be no. The United States is no longer in a position to act altruistically. Russia is a superior nuclear power, and China may reach a similar status within a decade. The world has changed and American leaders must accept that its adversaries are no longer willing to follow America’s lead.

Professor Stephen Cimbala, PhD, is a professor at Penn State-Brandywine. Views expressed are his own.

An Uncertain Future for Arms Control was originally published on Global Security Review.