The United States has not conducted any explosive nuclear tests since 1992, a testament to its commitment to nuclear arms control. However, the landscape of nuclear strategy may shift as the Trump administration considers withdrawing from the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) in 2026. This treaty, although never ratified by Congress, has guided U.S. nuclear policies and facilitated a reduction in nuclear warheads, alongside Russia. The potential withdrawal raises questions about the future of nuclear arms control and modernization efforts.
North Korea remains the only country to have tested a nuclear weapon this century, highlighting the ongoing global tension surrounding nuclear proliferation. Meanwhile, the United States has maintained its arsenal, currently holding around 12,000 nuclear warheads. The U.S. adheres to the terms of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, signed in 1996, which prohibits nuclear weapons tests worldwide. Prior to this treaty, over 2,000 nuclear tests had detrimental effects on human health and the environment.
The U.S. continues to conduct non-explosive "subcritical" nuclear tests as part of its strategy to maintain its nuclear capabilities without contravening international treaties. Additionally, it possesses 14 submarines equipped with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, a critical component of its nuclear deterrent strategy. The Biden administration attempted to halt the development of a new nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile, reflecting ongoing debates about the scope and direction of U.S. nuclear modernization.
The modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is a considerable undertaking, involving the replacement or revamping of nearly every component, including warheads and delivery systems. This effort is already over budget and behind schedule, complicating an already complex issue. The impending expiration of the New START treaty in February 2026 adds another layer of urgency and complexity to these discussions.
“That will give a very good blueprint for how the administration is viewing the role of nuclear weapons and how it will approach investing in the kind of force that they would like to see,” – Sharon Squassoni.
The potential withdrawal from New START raises significant concerns among experts and policymakers. The treaty has been instrumental in maintaining strategic stability between the U.S. and Russia by capping the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles.
“I think it’d be a huge mistake. But it’s something that I and others will be looking at.” – Steve Fetter.
Critics argue that abandoning New START could spark a new arms race, undermining decades of progress in nuclear arms reduction. The treaty's expiration could lead to increased uncertainty and tensions between the world's foremost nuclear powers.
Despite these concerns, some analysts argue that any changes in U.S. nuclear policy or posture would face significant institutional and political challenges.
“His ability to change what’s actually happening on the ground in the U.S. is pretty close to zero,” – Lisbeth Gronlund.
This perspective suggests that structural and bureaucratic inertia may limit drastic shifts in policy or strategy. However, the modernization program continues to face scrutiny due to its escalating costs and delays. These challenges highlight the complexities involved in updating a nuclear arsenal while adhering to international norms and treaties.
The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty remains a cornerstone of global non-proliferation efforts, striving to prevent the resumption of explosive nuclear testing worldwide. Although signed by the U.S., it has yet to be ratified by Congress, reflecting ongoing domestic debates about its effectiveness and implications for national security.
Leave a Reply