Most the world’s approximately 12,100 nuclear weapons are held by just a handful of major world powers. The U.S. and Russia hold nearly 87 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons, with Russia possessing approximately 5,500 and the US holding approximately 5,177, declared  weapons, many of which remain in a state of high alert. China possesses an estimated 600 operational nuclear weapons, with the number having grown by over 100 in recent years. France is estimated to have 290 warheads; the UK, 225; India, 180; and Pakistan, 170. These countries have all maintained stable stockpiles through modernization efforts. However, North Korea maintains an estimated 50 nuclear weapons, but is aggressively developing its nuclear delivery capabilities, including the development of solid-fueled ICBMs and nuclear-capable submarines with Russian backing.

These developments present the growth in nuclear arsenals and nuclear technology, rather than a reduction. The growth includes the qualitative development of nuclear delivery technology, such as hypersonic vehicles and Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs), which has undermined the existing balance in the arms race established because of the Cold War.

The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New Start), which remains the last bilateral US-Russian nuclear weapons agreement, is scheduled to expire on February 5, 2026, without any proposed replacements because of disagreement on the treaty’s terms. In 2023, Russia withdrew from the inspection and data sharing provisions in relation to Ukraine, but the two countries have openly stated to voluntarily meet their respective limit requirements under the treaty since then. If the treaty is allowed to lapse, it is anticipated that each side could begin to increase their nuclear weapons arsenal, which could prompt other nuclear-capable states, including China, to do likewise.

Additionally, the upcoming review conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) set to occur in New York in April 2026, presents additional challenges. Past NPT review conferences have been unable to reach a consensus primarily because of the anger expressed by non-nuclear states toward nuclear-armed states for failing to meet their obligations under Article VI of the treaty to pursue disarmament. As a result of this failure, several treaties relating to the regulation of nuclear weapons, including the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) have been signed but not ratified by key signatory states and therefore lack the needed verification mechanisms.

Iran may also be motivated to obtain nuclear weapons for the purpose of providing a deterrent against Israel’s expanding conventional and nuclear capabilities. Iran’s nuclear weapons program is one of the most pressing issues confronting the United States and Israel today. Iran is now stockpiling uranium-enriched to 60% levels that are close to the level of enrichment required to produce nuclear weapons. It is also developing new centrifuges at its underground facility, known as Fordow, and is shortening the time it takes to produce a nuclear weapon despite continuing economic sanctions and airstrikes against its military assets.

Further, North Korea indicated that 2025 would be a “crucial year” for its nuclear weapons development program and announced that it successfully tested its Hwasong-20 Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) and has increased the size of its nuclear facility at Yongbyon; it intends to complete construction of missile factories by 2026. Regional conflicts on the Korean Peninsula and in the Middle East, especially those involving Iran and Israel continue to pose a substantial risk of unintended escalation in the increasingly complex and multi-polar world we live in today.

Disarmament is nothing more than a relic of a bygone era. Nuclear-armed states are engaging in modernization efforts and the language used by these states appears to lower the threshold for using these weapons, seen from Russia’s nuclear threats regarding Ukraine to the lowering of nuclear alert status. Verification is touted by some as much as possible through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); however, the nuclear powers are unwilling to provide the level of transparency needed to verify compliance with any proposed disarmament treaty. Furthermore, although non-proliferation efforts have successfully limited the number of new nuclear weapons being developed, until nuclear-armed states reduce their own arsenals, non-proliferation efforts will remain a hollow pillar.

In 2026, nuclear arsenals among the great powers are expected to continue expanding. At the same time, the expiration of New START is likely to lead to the failure of the NPT Review Conference, further weakening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime. These challenges will be compounded by the emergence of modern technologies, including artificial-intelligence–enabled command systems and hypersonic delivery vehicles, which increasingly blur the line between conventional and nuclear capabilities. When combined with the proliferation activities of states such as Iran and North Korea, these developments will place unprecedented strain on diplomatic efforts to prevent conflict and miscalculation. This risk is heightened further by escalating tensions among the world’s major powers.

Ms. Harsa Kakar is working as an Assistant Research Fellow at Balochistan Think Tank Network (BTTN), at BUITEMS, Quetta, Pakistan. She is an MS International Relations Scholar at BUITEMS, Quetta, and a distinguished graduate of International Relations from the University of Balochistan. She specializes in AI, Global Politics, Diplomacy, Soft Power, and Conflict Resolution. Views expressed in this article are her own.

The Dawn of 2026 and Challenges to Non-Proliferation was originally published on Global Security Review.

ICBM EAR Report Nov 5, 2024 was originally published on Global Security Review.

Throughout his first term, Trump consistently emphasized the importance of nuclear weapons to national security. He viewed nuclear modernization as essential to maintaining military superiority, often stating that the United States must have the strongest nuclear arsenal in the world. In a 2017 interview, Trump said, “We have to be the top of the pack,” signaling his commitment to nuclear dominance.

Trump’s push for nuclear modernization culminated in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which highlighted the need to revitalize the nuclear triad—comprising land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM), and strategic bombers. The NPR called for developing low-yield nuclear warheads, modernizing aging delivery systems, and investing in new nuclear command, control, and communication (NC3) infrastructure. These initiatives reflected Trump’s belief that a robust and credible nuclear deterrent is the bedrock of national security.

Policies and Actions During Trump’s First Term

Trump’s nuclear policies were characterized by a blend of assertiveness and unpredictability. He withdrew the United States from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, citing Russian violations, and signaled reluctance to renew the New START Treaty without significant changes such as adding China to the treaty. While these actions were criticized by some as undermining arms control efforts, they were consistent with Trump’s view that the United States should not be constrained by treaties that he perceived as one-sided or outdated.

Under Trump, the Pentagon pursued the development of new nuclear capabilities, including the W76-2 low-yield warhead, which was deployed on Ohio-class submarines. This move was intended to provide the US with more flexible and credible deterrence options, particularly against regional adversaries. Trump also supported the development of the Sentinel ICBM to replace the aging Minuteman III.

However, Trump’s approach to nuclear deterrence also included moments of brinkmanship and unpredictability. His “fire and fury” rhetoric toward North Korea and his famous twitter threat that “I too have a nuclear button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my button works!” underscored his willingness to use the threat of nuclear force as a means of coercion.

While these statements alarmed many, they also demonstrated Trump’s belief in the deterrent value of projecting strength and unpredictability. Ultimately, perceptions of Trump’s nuclear rhetoric varied—some saw it as inflammatory, others as necessary to exercise strength and resolve—but the fact remains that during his administration, the US avoided major conflicts.

 The Role of Trump’s National Security Advisors

Trump’s national security advisors played a crucial role in shaping his nuclear policy during his administration and are likely to continue to do so moving forward. Looking ahead, a potential Trump administration is already seeing a contest for top national security positions, with figures like Richard Grenell and Elbridge Colby emerging as frontrunners for the role of National Security Advisor. Grenell is known for his staunch “America First” stance and his confrontational style, which aligns closely with Trump’s preferences. Colby, a former senior Pentagon official, is a strong advocate for focusing military efforts on countering China, potentially signaling a shift in priorities away from Europe.

The selection of these advisors would likely shape Trump’s nuclear policy in significant ways, emphasizing a hardline stance on China, a push for further nuclear modernization, and a continuation of the “America First” doctrine that marked his first term. As Trump’s potential return to the White House looms, the advisors he chooses will play a pivotal role in determining how the US navigates the complex landscape of nuclear deterrence and global security.

What Could a Second Trump Term Mean for Nuclear Deterrence?

If Trump were to return to the White House, it is likely that his administration would continue to prioritize nuclear modernization. The Sentinel program, the development of the Columbia-class submarine, and the enhancement of NC3 infrastructure would likely remain top priorities. Additionally, Trump could seek to further expand the nuclear arsenal quantitatively and qualitatively, potentially fielding new nuclear weapons, such as sea-launched cruise missiles (SLCM) or new low-yield options.

A second Trump term could also see a continuation of his assertive approach to arms control. Trump may push for more stringent terms in any potential arms control agreements, or he could further distance the US from existing treaties if he perceives them as constraining American capabilities. This approach could lead to increased tensions with China and Russia, potentially sparking a new arms race, or it could be the exact prescription required for effective arms control.

At the same time, Trump’s willingness to engage in high-stakes diplomacy, exemplified by his dealings with North Korea, indicates he might pursue similar approaches with other nuclear-armed adversaries. However, the unpredictability that defined his first term could heighten the risk of miscalculation or escalation, especially in nuclear crises, or it could be that it just happens to induce a proper amount of fear that the adversary effectively backs down or ceases operations. Ultimately, Trump’s unpredictability serves as a tool to instill fear and uncertainty in adversaries, keeping them cautious and off-balance.

 Conclusion

 A second Trump presidency could bring renewed momentum to US nuclear deterrence and modernization efforts. Trump’s first term demonstrated a clear commitment to revitalizing America’s nuclear arsenal, recognizing its crucial role in maintaining national security. His administration prioritized the development of modern capabilities, ensuring the nuclear triad remains credible and effective.

Trump’s focus on nuclear superiority aligns with his “America First” doctrine, which emphasizes the importance of military strength in securing peace and stability. By continuing to push for advanced nuclear technologies and modernized infrastructure, a second Trump term could restore America’s position as the world’s foremost nuclear power. A second Trump presidency, therefore, could enhance American nuclear deterrence, ensuring that the arsenal remains a potent force for peace and stability in an increasingly complex global landscape for years to come.

Aaron Holland is a PhD candidate at the University of Utah and is an Analyst at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies. Views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

What Nuclear Deterrence Might Look Like Under a Second Trump Presidency was originally published on Global Security Review.

Eight recent assessments of future prospects for strategic stability in light of growing nuclear dangers have been brought forward for consideration including (1) a Brookings Institute essay by Caitlyn Talmadge on the Biden and Trump approaches to nuclear deterrence; (2) Representative and Intelligence Chair Mike Turner’s nuclear and space related remarks at CSIS; (3) Joe Cirincione’s description of the Biden and Trump nuclear agenda’s as dangerously bad and worse, respectively; (4) Professor Wittmer’s complaint that everything Trump might do or has done on nuclear deterrence has accelerated the “arms race”; (5) Brad Robert’s top-notch look into the future about what the LLNL program director describes as “unwelcome” truths  that must be faced; (6) Mark Schneider’s welcome assessment of what French President Macron is trying to do with extended nuclear deterrence in Europe and the related pitfalls; (7) Mathew Kroenig and Mark Massa review the value of ICBMs and particularly what is required for future ICBM related nuclear deterrence–and in their usual scholarly manner; and (8) commentary by Mike Albertson of LLNL and (9) Con Coughlin of Gatestone about what the US  and its allies are facing over the next few decades in the nuclear arena and why meeting the deterrent challenge is both very interesting but also absolutely challenging. Coughlin’s top concern is the US non-confrontational policy with respect to Iran and the relative loss of credible US deterrent capability.

The Critics

Talmadge, Wittmer, and Cirincione portray former President Trump as some kind of nuclear Mad Hatter or Dr. Strangelove who will bring about nuclear Armageddon, although all three largely get  recent nuclear deterrent history wrong. However, their narrative is common with Hollywood and reflected in both the new Oppenheimer film, as well as in Annie Jacobson book that describes current US nuclear deterrent strategy as “Mad” and immoral. Cirincione even describes the Biden nuclear modernization program as highly dangerous even though its entirety fits within the confines of the New START agreement of 2010.

As for Whitmer’s claim the “arms race” accelerated after 2017, the facts are that as of 2010, Russia had already planned the deployment of some 29 new types of strategic and theater nuclear weapons, which have remained on schedule and are now over 90% complete.

As for whether the US should have shown restraint, an amendment to kill the ICBM leg of the Triad was offered by Representative Garamendi in June 2021 in the HASC and House floor, with the Democrats in the majority, and lost 49-9 in Committee and 308-119 on the House floor. And as Dr. David Trachtenberg has shown in a previous essay, the idea that US restraint in US deployments of nuclear weapons will generate similar restraint among our adversaries is debunked by history. As former defense secretary Harold Brown once quipped, “We build, they build. We stop, they build.”

Steady as You Go & Enhancements Needed?  .

Another perspective comes from the essays of Dr. Roberts, Dr. Kroenig and Mr. Massa. They both are excellent contributions to the growing proposals of how to meet the challenge of what Admiral Charles Richard described as a projected two peer nuclear armed enemies of the United States by 2035. Both analyze the program of record which is based on the force structure planned in 2010 and which fits within the New START agreement which has been observed for the past three administrations, including that of President Donald Trump for 2017-21.

Kroenig and Massa explore former HASC Chairman Smith’s proposal to eliminate all ICBMs. Their unique contribution is to point out if ICBMs are so needed they might be launched promptly during an attack, it makes no sense to eliminate their capability, especially as it would eliminate a key required deterrent capability while also leaving the US with roughly 12 targets on land and at sea which if eliminated would put the US out of the nuclear business. As former NDU President General Mike Dunn once explained, “Why would we make it easier for our enemies to disarm us?”

Dr. Brad Roberts explains the positive days of 2010 are now gone, and the unwelcome truths are that we are entering a very dangerous nuclear era but which we must squarely face. He is concerned a future US administration might fail to continue the US extended deterrent over NATO and our Pacific allies, with the possible consequence that our allies seek their own nuclear deterrent, which could have serious consequences for the nuclear non-proliferation regime. And his top concern is the relative lack of urgency with which US national leaders take to the nuclear table, as the consequence of inaction or delay could be deadly.

NIPP’s Mark Schneider looks at what President Macron is proposing for extended deterrence in Europe as wholly inadequate for NATO’s security but should be fully examined. It is important to note when discussing the US relationship with NATO that under the previous administration, the DoD resources devoted to defending our NATO allies increased significantly, as did the number of NATO members that met the 2% spending target for defense, completely consistent with previous President Trump’s recent declaration that he is “100%” with NATO.

House Intelligence Chair Mike Turner explores with Dr. Kari Bingen of CSIS the big threats facing the US (which the critics reviewed here hardly mention). The Russian deployment of ASAT nuclear forces is a serious threat says Turner to US space assets, while the Posture Commission support for widespread missile defense capabilities is a big breakthrough and hopefully will lead to rapid new US deployments says the Ohio representative.

The highlight of the new NIPP study by Schneider is the chart on what Russia is currently building or has in development—some 26 new nuclear types of weapons while the US has five. The Russian force moderation is near 93% complete according to the Kremlin while the US modernization effort has yet to place its first SNDV or strategic nuclear delivery vehicle into the force.

Program of Record Plus

The three critics of current modernization are primarily concerned with four augmentations to the program of record, as well as the rhetoric and diplomatic actions of the former President, even in the case of Cirincione thinking even the Obama era current program of record is highly dangerous.

As the Strategic Posture Commission report emphasized, the current program of record is necessary even critical but it is not adequate to the deterrent task before us. One thing being proposed by Brad Roberts, for example, is the development of a Navy cruise missile that would be nuclear armed, a Tomahawk technology removed from the theater nuclear force inventory by President Herbert Walker Bush but then dismantled by the Obama administration.

The stealthy, prompt and survivable at sea theater system would meet all the criteria needed for a sound theater deterrent and would meet the current gap between US vs Russian and Chinese theater systems in the European and Pacific theaters. The number that might be deployed would probably be in the intermediate dozens of such weapons, but certainly not anywhere near the 1900 Russian theater systems identified by the US intelligence community, to say nothing of what the Chinese may have deployed. But as Franklin Miller writes July 10^th, “a U.S. nuclear sea-launched cruise missile would enhance deterrence and reassure allies in peacetime and crisis, and, in wartime, provide a President with additional options to prevent enemy nuclear escalation. The W 76-2 is an excellent weapon, but any President deserves more than one option; the combination of the ballistic W 76-2 and the airbreathing SLCM-N would provide a President with significant flexibility to manage a crisis.’

Another augmentation has been completed and that has been adding low-yield nuclear weapons to the D-5 missiles, again for a total number of such weapons in the low dozens at most, an added capability endorsed by the current administration. Both the low-yield D-5 and a SLCM-N would help rectify the current theater imbalance and be able to deter the use of such weapons at the low end of the nuclear spectrum, which itself enhances deterrence, avoiding what then Senator John Kennedy declared in 1959 was the bad choice between all out Armageddon, (massive retaliation), or surrender (standing down.) .

Additional elements of enhancing the US deterrent posture especially after New START expires would be adding warheads to the US ICBM and SLBM force of 692 missiles as envisioned by the 12 Columbia class submarines (the minimum needed) and 192 D-5 missiles and the 400 Sentinel missiles, although there are proposals on the table for also deploying the 50 reserve ICBMs allowed as a hedge under New START. As well as to upload our B52s and other bombers.

Implementing the Hedge?

When taken together, the US has a hedge capability of around 1000 additional warheads the US could add to its strategic nuclear posture and could do so over a period of 3-4 years depending on how fast the US could deploy additional ICBM warheads on either the legacy MMIII ICBMs or the new Sentinel system. Whatever is the case, the roughly 2800+ warheads the US could have in its strategic nuclear force by 2035 would be dwarfed by the projected Russia and China nuclear forces, which Professor Chris Yeaw, at the 20^{th of} June Triad Symposium at LSUS,  has projected will reach some 10,000 warheads.

In short, what proponents of nuclear enhancements vs nuclear restraint are arguing over is the deployment of some 1000 US warheads or an augmentation of the US strategic force of some fifty percent of the current US strategic, long-range force. Even if one adds in a force of 300 theater systems including the current gravity bombs in Europe and the projected new SLCM-N theater forces, the total buildup for the United States would at best reach 3000 warheads by the middle of the next decade. Or more likely the following decade some 20 years hence if the fully modernized force of 12 Columbia class submarines and SLEP D-5 missiles, 20 B21 bombers and associated cruise missiles and 400-50 Sentinel missiles, is fielded.

Given the breathtaking expansion of Russian and Chinese forces already underway, such a US response is nothing but practical and proportionate and well within a reasonable calculation of what is required, as Franklin Miller has noted, to right the current deterrent imbalance, without necessarily matching warhead for warhead the projected deployed Russian and Chinese forces.

The critics of enhancement, however, spend almost no time doing an informed review of how they would correct the current imbalance except to claim the US is unnecessarily leading a new arms race (demonstrably wrong), or as Cirincione put it, seeking to wage nuclear war (again demonstrably absurd).

The next US Administration and the JCPOA, North Korea, INF and Arms Control.

What the critics concentrate on is the rhetoric and diplomatic action of the previous administration. These actions include withdrawal from the JCPOA, the joint nuclear agreement with Iran, the withdrawal from the INF treaty, and the US relationship with North Korea and its nuclear and missile forces.

North Korea and the Button

The former President did remind the leader of North Korea that the US did have a more formidable nuclear deterrent than the DPRK and that our deterrent after decade of testing actually worked. Both comments were perfectly consistent with the time-honored point of the US deterrent strategy: (1) our deterrent is very large and (2) we have the will to use it should North Korea attack the United States. Interestingly, the NPRK did not test a nuclear weapon or test an ICBM range missile during 2017-20.

Iran & The JCPOA

The United States never ratified the Iranian JCPOA as the votes were not there in the US Senate. The deal could not be ratified because it was a bad deal. Instead, the previous Obama administration used a clever rube goldbergian strategy to secure an occasional review of the agreement by the US Senate. The agreement allowed the Iranians to build up an enhanced capability to produce weapons grade nuclear fuel, with the requirement that the low-level produced fuel be exported—primarily to Russia. However, since all the provisions in the deal expire soon, where are the diplomatic efforts over the past 2 ½ years to extended the agreement or make it permanent if its provisions are so demonstrably good? The fact that Iran may have been adhering to the provisions of the deal does not magically change the terms of the deal from terrible to good!

And where is the diplomatic effort for the US  to sign back up to the JCPOA and this time get the Senate to agree? In fact, much of the opposite has occurred including the US dropping sanctions against Iran, which then provided to Tehran tens of billions in hard currency. On top of which, despite the US restraint, Iran has attacked the US some 170 times between October 2023 and January 2024.

Including killing and wounding US servicemen and women, to saying nothing of planning, arming and financing the horrible Hamas slaughter of Israel’s last October and the launching of hundreds of missiles and rockets against Israel this spring. No such attacks occurred during the previous administration as Iranian hard currency reserves fell to around $10 billon, which is near 1/10^th their current level, and contributed significantly to the Iranian lack of resources to conduct its serial terrorist activities.

Even more dangerous is that Iran in cooperation with China, Russia, and the terrorist group Houthis, has engineered a  new form of piracy where ocean borne freight traffic, including oil tankers are denied access to the Red Sea and Suez Canal unless they agree to abide by new Chinese rules, a kind of ocean toll road regime, as outlined recently by the group Committee on the Present Danger-China.

And as a former US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Congress about the Somalia based “pirates,” they could only locate ships at sea with the use of GPS—which as only the US and Russia could provide such technology it was obvious with what country  the pirates were doing business.

INF & Arms Control Prospects?

The previous administration did try and bring China and Russia do the arms control table but were harshly criticized for thinking China would agree to any such warhead ceilings while trailing the US inventory—although the Soviets did just that in SALT I with respect to the balance in strategic forces in 1972. And despite being outgunned 2000/1 by the Soviets SS-20 deployments, President Ronald Reagan successfully secured the removal of all Soviet SS-20 missiles from both Europe and Asia, while strengthening NATO and our Pacific alliances.

As for the INF treaty, it is widely known the Russians were serially cheating on the agreement. Having only one party to a treaty that is complying with is hardly the way international agreements work, although perhaps the critics have some suggestions which were absent from their essays.

The Record of Arms Control Deals

The tendency for the critics of former President Trump is to claim those with whom they disagree are somehow “against arms control,” in favor of arms races and want to fight nuclear war. These claims were made against President Reagan, who in fact once quipped his domestic critics were harsher in their opposition to his nuclear modernization plans than was the USSR!

In hosting some multiple hundreds of arms control seminars from 1983 through 2024, the actual facts are startling: Republican Presidents cut US strategic long-range nuclear forces from over 10,000 to roughly 2200, and reduced theater nuclear forces by additional multiples of ten thousand warheads, while also securing –for a multiple of reasons– massive reductions in Soviet and then Russian nuclear weapons amounting to also multiple tens of thousands.

Where and When Did Modernization Start?

Unfortunately, as retired General John Hyten explained during the last ten years of his military leadership as Deputy Commander of the USAF Space Command, then  as Commander of US Strategic Command, and then Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Putin had a plan to fully modernize his forces starting in 2004 and not continue on the path of further nuclear reductions but to actually augment the Russian force to multiples of the New START allowable force.

According to Rick Fisher and Bradley Thayer and Mark Schnieder, the Chinese too had plans to build up to over 1500 strategic nuclear warheads, fully adopted in the 2008-9 timeframe, both demonstrably before the Trump administration, which completely obliterates Professor Wittmer’s complaint that the Chinese and Russian nuclear buildups are all Trump’s fault.

The Great Unravelling

Indeed, the arms control progress assumed to be holding from START I to New START has come unraveled. Although it’s tempting to “always blame America” for the rogue behavior of Xi and Putin, their nuclear transgressions are all their own as the Posture Commission explained—to them nuclear weapons are instruments of coercion and blackmail, to serve not to deter the interests of military aggression.

But on the current administration’s watch as Ms. Talmadge admits, things no longer hold: “Iran is now closer to a nuclear weapon. North Korea’s arsenal can more directly threaten the United States. China’s nuclear arsenal is expanding as it becomes increasingly confrontational toward Taiwan…and Russia is now engaged in a major conventional war on NATO’s border.’ The origin of the relative loss of US deterrent capability may be a complicated subject, but that the US has lost some deterrent strength is unquestioned. The key will be, as the Strategic Posture Commission boldly explained, to restore US deterrent strength on a bipartisan, lasting basis so we can successfully meet the challenges of the new nuclear era.

GET THE FULL REPORT

The Prospects for Nuclear Deterrence in the Next American Administration was originally published on Global Security Review.

Several months ago, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists published an article by Zak Kallenborn in which he defended nuclear weapons and their utility. Rebuttal articles published made two fundamental arguments. First, realism predicts the unavoidability of war, which requires the elimination of nuclear weapons. Second, deterrence is unreliable because previous close calls predict future failure.

The authors believe that reducing nuclear weapons to [near] zero limits the danger in inevitable future wars because future cheating or proliferation would only take place in small numbers, thereby limiting the damage of nuclear use. History and game theory prove this argument dangerously flawed.

For two millennia, major power wars occurred several times per century. Oxford’s Max Roser charts this bloody cost over the past 600 years. In that time 5–10 people per 100,000 population died in these wars, most of them civilians. In the past century deaths topped 100–200 deaths per 100,000 population.

Then after World War II something happened. Over the past seven decades this death rate has plummeted 99 percent to near zero (0.1/100,000 population). This is in spite of small spikes, which are attributable primarily to ethnic genocide in the (non-nuclear) global South. The world did not magically become more pacific. It built nuclear weapons.

The same abolitionists who criticize Kallenborn are horrified by the scale of the slaughter in Gaza and Ukraine. Over 315,000 Russian and 31,000 Ukraine troops are dead in Ukraine and 12,000 Hamas fighters in Gaza. Nuclear abolitionists fail to grasp, this is a mere drop in the bucket compared to great power war.

For example, during World War I, there were 480,000 casualties in 7 days at the Battle of the Marne. There were 848,614 casualties at Passendaele and another 946,000 at Verdun. During World War II, more than 61,000 British civilians died in the Battle of Britain. Over 83,000 British and American airmen died over Germany

European deaths during World War II are estimated at 28.7 million people. Great-power war gave rise to Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler, who exterminated over 30 million people between them. Stalin’s genocide of  3.5 to 7 million Ukrainians in 1932 and 1933 is the historical context for Ukrainian resistance today.

When it comes to killing civilians, the Japanese beat Stalin and Hitler combined. They killed over 300,000 Chinese during the “Rape of Nanjing.” China suffered over 35 million casualties during the Japanese occupation. When atomic bombs dropped on Japan, the Japanese army was still killing an estimated 250,000 Chinese every month.

During World War II, conventional bombing raids killed more civilians in a single night than both atomic bombs. In the Dresden firestorm, caused by allied conventional bombing, 135,000 Germans were incinerated. The ability of today’s conventional weapons is even greater.

The only answer to the horror of war is to keep the peace through effective deterrence.  To do this, those who would wage war must know the reward does not justify the risk. Deterrence does this at every level of conflict.

Arms control treaty regimes, the source of stability for nuclear disarmament advocates, are largely a failure. Despite the existence of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, and South Africa all sought or obtained the bomb. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty also failed to stop nuclear testing, with the violations of India, North Korea, and Pakistan. China, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Russia, and the United States have either not signed or ratified the treaty.

Russia breached the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty during the Obama administration and then suspended participation in New START in 2023. As a result, for the first time in five decades, there is no nuclear arms limitation treaty between the United States and Russia/Soviet Union. Russia already maintained a policy of escalate to de-escalate during New START negotiations and, in fact, Chinese, North Korean, and Russian military doctrines all contemplate nuclear warfighting across the spectrum of conflict.

Deterrence is working every day and is not reserved for discussions of nuclear war. As China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia coalesce in an authoritarian coalition, deterrence remains the last best hope for averting war. It works along the entire continuum of conflict, reducing the likelihood of war. In short, nuclear weapons save lives.

Colonel Kirk Fansher (US Air Force, Ret.) is a Senior Fellow at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies. The views expressed are the author’s own.

Why Nuclear Weapons Abolition Will Kill Millions (Again) was originally published on Global Security Review.

In 2010, Congress and the Obama administration reached an agreement that saw the Senate ratify the New START treaty in return for the administration’s support of nuclear modernization. This left advocates of nuclear disarmament dismayed.

Recent news that infrastructure costs for the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) is increasing appears to be generating efforts to once again kill the land-based leg of the nuclear triad. Such efforts are a mistake but are unlikely to end.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) told a SASC nuclear and space hearing on February 29, 2024, that the Sentinel ICBM has no reasonable acquisition program plan and previous Government Accountability Office warnings about the program costs were ignored. Reportedly, the senator’s previous efforts to kill Sentinel in the Senate Armed Services Committee received only one vote—hers.

As for the House of Representatives, one recent push to kill ICBMs was made in September 2021 when Representative John Garamendi (D-CA) proposed that the US block funding for the new ICBM and discard the new Sentinel missile altogether. His amendment failed in Committee 13–46 and on the House floor 118–299.

The new anti-ICBM campaign’s arguments have not changed, with one exception. The cost of ICBM infrastructure has increased. The 450 silos that need replacement exist with widely varied soil conditions. There is necessarily no uniformity of work required because the condition of each sixty-year-old silo varies considerably.

On the other hand, missile program costs are steady. While infrastructure costs increased, the cost of the new missile stayed steady. The motor technology was validated, and the new missile shroud was successfully tested.

Outside the new cost estimates, arguments against the Sentinel missile remain in the fiction category. These arguments are: (1) the nuclear modernization overall program costs are $2 trillion, which is too much; (2) the 50-year-old Minuteman III missile, if needed, can go through an inexpensive service life extension program (SLEP); (3) ICBM missiles are on a hair trigger alert and could accidentally start a nuclear war; (4) the missile force is only a sponge for Russian warheads; (5) there is no reasonable use of the missile except as a first-strike weapon against Russia; and (6) there is no reason to keep ICBMs through 2080 as the Air Force proposes, as this artificially inflates costs, and these old ICBMs can effectively be traded away in a new arms deal. Let’s examine these fairy tales in order.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) increased cost estimates for “modernization” by including both costs for modernization and sustainment. By also including all conventional bombers and all costs calculated over 30 years, with an average annual cost increase of 3 percent, the CBO cleverly reached the $1 trillion mark in what it described as only “modernization” costs. All nuclear forces cost $52 billion in fiscal year 2024. Modernization costs, however, which include Sentinel, Columbia, Trident D-5 missile, long-range standoff missile (LRSO), B21 Raider, and nuclear command, control, and communication (NC3) are only $19 billion of the total—36 percent of total nuclear spending.

As for a Minuteman III life extension, it is no longer technically feasible without actually building a new missile. Additionally, it also requires rebuilding the infrastructure which is increasingly costly in annual sustainment costs. In short, sustainment costs of the legacy Minuteman III system would increase even should all ICBM modernization programs be cut.

Even if a life extension on Minuteman III were possible, it must also be replaced with a new missile after a relatively short period of time. Keeping the legacy force, which is rising in cost each year, also runs the risk of what nuclear expert Clark Murdock called “rusting to obsolescence,” especially after 62 years on alert. Over time the remaining Minuteman IIIs would be worthless as a bargaining chip to trade away during arms negotiations with the Russians.

Arguments about “hair trigger alert,” sponges, and the uselessness of ICBMs for deterrence are all connected and easily dismissed altogether, as Representative Doug Lamborn, chair of the House Armed Services Committee, Strategic Forces Subcommittee, does in a recent essay.

First, the president would never authorize the launch of an ICBM without confirming the launch of an enemy attack on the US or allies—or detonation of an enemy warhead on American soil. No smart Russian leader would launch 900 warheads at the United States to destroy 450 missile silos and launch control centers, assuming the attack will not see a response from American submarines and/or bombers.

Since no massive enemy nuclear strike will occur, although a limited “escalate to win” strike is possible, American ICBMs are available for counter strikes and ongoing deterrence missions. The difficulty for any adversary that is planning to successfully destroy all of the United States’ ICBMs is not an invitation for an irrational attack. It complicates enemy plans to make such an attack operationally possible.

As to why original US Air Force comparative cost estimates used 2080 as a point through which the ICBM force would remain on alert, the answer is simple. Sentinel is being designed for a 50-year operational life cycle. Coincidentally, it is also the time period the Columbia-class submarine will remain in the US arsenal.

There was no conspiracy to artificially deflate the costs of alternative ICBM options. Since the disarmament community tries to stop most proposed nuclear modernization efforts, there is no reason to worry why the US is keeping its ICBM force until 2080. Remember, Minuteman III is 62 years old.

Finally, even at the new price, Sentinel’s price tag comes to $2.8 billion a year for the lifetime of the missile and, as General Anthony Cotton, Commander of US Strategic Command explained, it is foundational to American nuclear deterrence. The ICBM will remain in the force from 2031–2080 and in line with General Mattis’ words telling Congress that with respect to the cost of nuclear modernization, “the United States can afford survival.”

Peter Huessy is a senior fellow at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies.  Views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.

Name *

First

Last

Email *

Email

Confirm Email

please provide your contact email address.

Tell Us About Your Project *

Give us an idea of the subject matter.

What Areas Are You Interested In?Emerging ThreatsAllies and Extended DeterrenceStrategic AdversariesModernization and DeterrenceArms Control and Non-proliferation

Please tell us the areas match your interest. You can contribute in multiple areas.

Previously Published Work

Let us know if you have previously published elsewhere.

Submit

Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Fairy Tales was originally published on Global Security Review.