In June, we presented a detailed map that gave insight into who was who in last year’s nuclear arms race. The truth is that, as I write this, the map may be the same in 2024, with a small but very important change that we will explain below. The United States continues to dominate nuclear weapons spending, but what was once a distant prospect is now a breath of hope.

Nuclear “advantage”. A few weeks ago, Time reported a fact that hasn’t happened since the Cold War. Despite possessing one of the world’s largest nuclear arsenals, the United States faces a growing disadvantage against rivals whose nuclear expansion challenges the strategic balance. The code name is no longer Russia, but it is impossible not to put on the map the power that promises to be the greatest enemy: China.

The rapid construction of missile silos in the country’s western desert and the creation of long-range submarines and bombers, all detected by satellite images in recent months, indicate a massive increase in its nuclear capability; We can say that it is old and outdated according to the Chinese.

The inside story of the beginning. This week’s Guardian report examined the geopolitical “nuclear” map. It is impossible not to start from the starting point at the 1985 Geneva Summit, when the leaders of the USA and the USSR, followed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, declared that “a nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought.”

This declaration paved the way for decades of arms control, signing treaties and treaties that limited arsenals and halted an arms race that was always supposed to be disastrous if “tightened up.” But today this consensus is a long way off. In fact, the British media announced that there was a lot of input pointing to the same place: The world is facing a new and more dangerous nuclear race; This race features a guest actor that’s causing Russia and the United States to frown.

Key or “red button” for destruction at Titan II ICBM nuclear missile site located in Sahuarita, Arizona

Disassembly. As we said, after decades of negotiations, the United States and Russia officially reduced the number of nuclear weapons from 60,000 to around 11,000. This is where important agreements such as START and New START came into play; Proposals to allow the number of strategic weapons deployed to be limited to 1,550 per country.

What happened? The United States’ withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) in 2002 led to the erosion of the arms control system. This trend intensified when Russia suspended the New START treaty in 2022 in response to increasing Western intervention in Ukraine. In the background: February 2026, when New START will expire and for the first time in half a century the two largest nuclear powers will have no restrictions on their arsenals, an elephant in the room.

There are three now. The new nuclear race is more unstable and complex than the previous one due to a mathematical problem, as it involves three main actors. China, which has a limited arsenal, is currently in the process of full nuclear expansion, with the goal of equalizing the US and Russia, possibly by 2035.

This rapid expansion of China’s arsenal causes concern in Washington, especially given Asia’s alliance with Russia. With the “unlimited alliance” agreement, the two countries clearly expressed their intention to counter American influence on a global scale. The relationship between the three nuclear powers on this breeding ground adds a new and dangerous layer of tension to the arms competition.

Titan II launch site located in Sahuarita, Arizona

Made in Russia. The country has strengthened and modernized its nuclear capabilities, albeit more slowly, by developing new weapons such as the intercontinental hypersonic glider and the much-publicized long-range nuclear torpedo. Innovations aimed at countering the US deployment of anti-missile defenses, which Russia sees as a threat to its deterrent capacity. Moreover, this year they increased the tension even more by renewing their “nuclear doctrine”.

Made in the USA. Today the situation is further complicated by technological advances, primarily artificial intelligence, cyber weapons, and possible weapons (and conquests) in space; but this is a separate section. All factors that create an unstable environment that is difficult to predict. In this context, the United States has embarked on a costly process of modernizing its nuclear triad (missiles, bombers, and submarines), estimated at $1.5 trillion; This figure increases the tension and the country’s financial burden.

However, some of these weapons, such as ICBMs, are considered “first strike weapons” due to the need to be launched quickly in the event of conflict, increasing the risk of accidents and miscalculations.

And it’s made in China. Time provided up-to-date data. China has built at least 300 new intercontinental missile silos; This surpasses the US’s 400 Minuteman III missile silos, whose technology dates back 54 years. In addition, China is developing its ballistic submarine fleet with quieter and longer-range missiles with the upcoming Type 096 model.

In contrast, US shipyards are struggling to produce next-generation ballistic submarines on time, delaying delivery of the first Columbia-class submarine until at least 2027. But there is so much more. In addition to land and sea capabilities, China has also given the H-6 bomber a nuclear role and is developing the H-20, a long-range, stealth nuclear bomber that could threaten the continental United States for the first time. .

In simpler terms, all this rapid and multifaceted expansion clearly reflects the formation of China’s nuclear triad and thus coincides with the Americans’ triple deterrence strategy (land, sea and air).

Hour. It shouldn’t be taken literally, of course, but it is a reflection of tensions. The ticking of the Doomsday Clock occurred just 90 seconds after midnight in January, and the implication is clear: the closest we’ve come to a nuclear holocaust in history. It is indicative of the world’s increasing dependence on nuclear weapons and, perhaps more importantly, the lack of progress in arms control.

What about diplomacy? Despite rising tensions, there are steps that can be taken to stop the new nuclear arms race. The Guardian reported that one of these was the reactivation of communication channels between Washington and Moscow, which were necessary to avoid misunderstandings and effectively communicate intentions during the Cold War. According to NATO General Christopher Cavoli, these communication channels allowed nuclear powers to achieve deterrence without significant risk.

In addition, Rose Gottemoeller, former negotiator of the New START treaty, raises the possibility of a new agreement to limit medium-range missiles, with China included in the equation. Similarly, the US Senate may reconsider its position on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which has been ratified by 178 countries; but it cannot yet come into force until the United States, China and other key countries ratify it.

Result: infinite loop. The scenario described above sometimes leads us to think that we are back to the way things were. Pressure to increase arsenals does not necessarily mean greater security for countries; Rather, it turns into a tension that can get out of control.

As in the Cold War, a diplomatic de-escalation through dialogue and negotiation appears to be the only viable way to prevent this new nuclear race from coming to the brink of disaster. That, and achieving something abstract: Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping sitting down for coffee in the room, unarmed.

Image | Jonathan McIntosh

in Xataka | Among all world powers, only one has refused to sign an important agreement: AI does not control the nuclear red button

in Xataka | The United States produced the first plutonium core since 1989. Goal: replenish all nuclear warheads