Gorbachev and Reagan sign the INF Treaty in 1987.

“As long as nuclear weapons exist, there is a risk that they could be used – by accident, via a technical failure, or though the evil will of a man, madmen or terrorists. A nuclear-free world is not a utopia, but an imperative. Yet it can be achieved only through the demilitarization of international relations.” Mikhail Gorbachev, former leader of the Soviet Union (1985-1991).

“This idea [of nuclear disarmament] is dismissed sometimes as being unrealistic. I think what’s unrealistic is the belief that we can continue to maintain these enormous nuclear arsenals and expect that nothing is going to go wrong...Our luck is going to run out at some point.” Dr. Ira Helfand, speaking recently on Democracy Now. Dr. Helfand is the 2017 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for his advocacy on abolishing nuclear weapons and co-founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Last week I wrote about the dangers of Trump’s decision to resume nuclear weapons testing. This article discusses another similar threat to our safety.

On Feb. 5, 2026, the last remaining bilateral treaty limiting U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals will expire.

The New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) is the latest version of a treaty signed in 1991. It limits both the U.S. and  Russian nuclear arsenals to 1,550 strategic deployed warheads and 700 strategic launchers deployed on each side.

In 2021, the treaty was extended for five-years. It now needs to be re-negotiated.

Will the Trump administration respond rationally to reduce nuclear tensions and move the world in right direction? Or will their proven incompetent, chaotic and belligerent foreign relations style result in increasing the danger of nuclear annihilation?

The history of nuclear arms control agreements proves treaties work. Past treaties, by reducing the numbers of nukes and engendering some level of trust between the U.S. and Russia, did reduce the risks of a nuclear war.

From 1962 to 2011 eight nuclear arms control treaties were negotiated. The number of nuclear warheads were reduced from more than 70,000 to less than 12,500, missile delivery systems were dismantled and nuclear nations pledged to work toward the abolition of all nukes.

The 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligates all 191 signatory nations to either not develop nuclear weapons or to negotiate “in good faith” to reduce and eventually eliminate their arsenals. This treaty remains in force but work on negotiating its full implementation has stalled out.

The U.S. signed and ratified this treaty but has not followed through to negotiate the total abolition of all nuclear weapons.

Today all the past progress on reducing the dangers of nuclear weapons is being undermined or abandoned. Prior arms control agreements have expired. Under George W. Bush and Donald Trump the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from several treaties. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have refused support of the 2017 U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (negotiated because the NPT had failed to eliminating all nuclear weapons).

Beginning with the Barack Obama administration, the U.S. has been fueling a new nuclear weapons arms race with a $2 trillion initiative to “modernize” our entire nuclear arsenal and delivery systems.

Failure to re-negotiate New START will remove the last bilateral limitation on the size of both the  U.S. and Russian arsenals. Since both have been ignoring their NPT obligations, and both are not signatories of the TPNW, both nations may decide to build and deploy as many nukes as they want. This will further fuel the ongoing nuclear arms race.

It is likely this will motivate China and the other nuclear weapons nations to follow suit, further exacerbating the threats of a nuclear war.

The current number of nuclear warheads is more than enough to literally destroy human civilization on earth. The world does not need more nukes or fewer restraints on their development and deployment. We need Russia and the U.S. to re-negotiate New START.

Ideally this would be part of both nations signing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and negotiating (with the other seven nuclear weapons nations) the total elimination of all nuclear weapons. Only then will the world be safe from nuclear holocaust.

Russia has signaled that they are open to continuing to abide by the New START treaty. Speaking to the Russian Security Council in September, Putin said, “a complete renunciation of New START’s legacy would... be a grave and short-sighted mistake...” He said Russia is “prepared to continue observing the…central quantitative restrictions...” after its expiration if the United States “acts in a similar spirit.” Russia’s “voluntary self-limitations” would be reevaluated after one year.

Putin makes it clear that Russia’s willingness to continue complying with the New START treaty is contingent on U.S. behavior. The deal is off if the U.S. takes “steps that would undermine or disrupt the existing balance of deterrence.”

Trump’s decision to resume nuclear testing, his prior statements about building a “Golden Dome” missile defense system (a revival or Reagan’s failed, but expensive “Star Wars” program) and our nuclear weapons “modernization” program could all be interpreted by Russia as disrupting “the balance of deterrence.”

So the ball is in Trump’s court. Will he drop the ball or will he respond positively to Russia’s willingness to negotiate?

Given Trump’s chaotic, on-again-off-again, aggressive “escalate to deescalate” negotiation style, the odds don’t look good for maintaining the New START treaty.

Today the threat of a nuclear disaster is very real and increasing. There are a number of ongoing conflicts that could easily escalate into a nuclear war. The war in Ukraine is the most obvious and dangerous. But increasing tensions with China, North Korea and the ongoing conflicts between Pakistan and India are other dangerous situations.

As I have written in past articles, there are no national security, political, economic or ideological objectives that would be worth the horrendous costs of even a minor use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are insanity and a disaster waiting to happen.

Rather than being a “deterrent” to war, nuclear weapons are militarily useless and huge threat to all humanity.

As Dr. Helfand warns us, “... we need to change our nuclear policy so that it is no longer based on the idea that nuclear weapons make us safe, but that it recognizes the fact that nuclear weapons are the greatest threat to our safety.”