Nuclear force is no longer only a deterrent. Instead, it has moved beyond its traditional role to reshape the global order and demonstrate might in a volatile and conflict-stricken international environment. Current military strategies indicate that major powers such as the US, Russia, and China are engaged in a complex arms race that even extends into outer and cyber space. This has opened the door to unprecedented arenas of conflict. Given the lack of effective non-proliferation treaties amidst heightened international and regional tensions, the nuclear threat has become more urgent. There are growing risks associated with nuclear escalation and potential unforeseen incidents. According to 2023 reports, global spending on nuclear arms programs totaled 83 billion USD, which reflects the increased focus on developing these programs.

A Legacy of Deterrence

The nuclear arms race has been a longstanding feature of the bipolar international order since the mid-twentieth century. At that time, competition between the US and the former Soviet Union intensified over the acquisition and development of the largest possible arsenal of nuclear weapons, either for achieving deterrence or military and strategic superiority. During the Cold War, these two leading international powers followed the principle of nuclear deterrence or "mutually-assured destruction" (MAD), which meant that the use of nuclear weapons would have been a fatal choice for either side. However, this did not prevent continuing competition over developing nuclear technologies. When the Cold War ended, the nuclear arms race changed from a bipolar to a multipolar problem that included various regional powers, such as India, Pakistan, and China. There are also nuclear programs under development in countries such as North Korea and Iran.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in the 1990s, studies have followed the axiom that nuclear weapons have become unusable: they promote deterrence and balances of international power but would not be deployed in armed conflicts. According to this perspective, nuclear weapons are only deterrents that protect national sovereignty. However, reducing nuclear weapons arsenals could lead to a traditional arms race of non-nuclear weapons to fill the gap, which would heighten instability. US hegemony and unipolarity at the beginning of the 1990s appear to have significantly contributed to the easing of the nuclear arms race and implementation of a nuclear nonproliferation system, including restraints on developing military nuclear programs.

Studies have shed light on various issues such as the enormous costs of developing nuclear arsenals and corresponding effects on national economies, as well as nontraditional threats such as the environmental repercussions of non-secure storage facilities for nuclear weapons and waste. Other studies have dealt with the risks of nuclear radiation, while nuclear nonproliferation research has also ramped up. This field focuses on analysis of the international order for the purpose of nuclear non-proliferation and addressing related challenges. In other words, these studies consider the comprehensive ramifications of the nuclear phenomenon rather than treating it only as a military matter.

Nuclear Escalation Returns

The world has recently witnessed a marked rise in indicators of nuclear escalation and arms races. Tensions have mounted between major nuclear powers such as the US, Russia, and China, while new actors have also entered the nuclear arena and shown growing interest in acquiring and using nuclear weapons in international conflicts.

1- China expands nuclear arsenal: Reports indicate that China has quickly expanded its nuclear arsenal with the addition of around 100 nuclear warheads in a single year, bringing its total to more than 600 warheads by the end of 2024. It is projected that this number will reach more than 1000 warheads by 2030. China has also built 320 new launch platforms for its intercontinental ballistic missiles such as the DF-41, which can carry multiple nuclear warheads and could reach targets in the US. According to 2024 data, China is estimated to have spent around 11 billion USD on developing and upgrading its nuclear weapons, which reflects a major shift in its defense strategy.

2- A shift in Russia’s nuclear doctrine: Russian President Vladimir Putin announced changes in Russian nuclear doctrine with regard to lowering the threshold at which nuclear weapons could be used. This shift demonstrates Russia’s reliance on nuclear deterrents as a bargaining chip in its dealings with the West. Russia has also continued to develop hypersonic missile systems such as Avangard and Kinzhal which will make it harder to counter, and reinforces its ability to carry out rapid and precise strategic strikes. In this regard, reports indicate that Russia possesses the largest number of nuclear warheads globally with a total of 5977 as of 2024. This bolsters Russia’s standing as a key nuclear power.

3- US nuclear arsenal gets a comprehensive upgrade: The US allocated 1.7 trillion USD to update its nuclear arsenal, including developing Columbia-class nuclear submarines and new Minuteman missiles (version 3). Total US spending on its nuclear programs reached 43 billion in 2023, which is the highest allocation of funds globally and reflects the US commitment to maintaining nuclear superiority. The US possesses around 3708 nuclear warheads, which are distributed across various strategic sites and armament programs.

4- Increasing nuclear militarization of space: Major powers are endeavoring to expand their nuclear strategies to include outer space. This has included developing sophisticated technologies for anti-satellite missiles and integrating space capabilities into nuclear deterrence systems. China has developed the ASAT system to counter US satellites, while Russia is trying to develop Nudol anti-satellite missiles. The US is believed to have significantly invested in offensive space systems such as X-37B to ensure its superiority in space-based conflict.

For its part, Russia will continue to work on developing novel weapons including nuclear weapons meant to be used in space. This will grant it an additional strategic advantage and highlight its capability to maneuver against the US and its allies. The Russian satellite Kosmos 2553 is currently in "graveyard orbit," that is, it is orbiting in rarely-used regions of space that will expose it to high levels of radiation. This is a sign of a new nuclear arms race. US reports indicate that this satellite is carrying a mock warhead, which has raised concerns about whether it could be used as a test platform for nuclear weapons that could destroy satellites in space.

Major powers have launched growing numbers of satellites with potential military uses. These include US KH-11 reconnaissance satellites, Chinese Gaofen satellites, and Russian Tundra satellites, which could provide early warning of nuclear attacks. These satellites could also support the accuracy of ballistic missiles or disrupt adversaries’ communications systems, making them critical tools for potential nuclear conflict. China has kept pace in this competition, with Beijing allocating around 3 billion USD to develop space programs related to armament.

5- A growing focus on cyberwar: Major powers are seeking to develop sophisticated cyber systems that can be used to launch attacks on their adversaries’ nuclear and space systems. These systems would employ artificial intelligence to target opponents’ nuclear weapons, since cyberattacks could disrupt nuclear command-and-control systems. It is believed that the US has invested around 10 billion annually in nuclear cyber programs.

Eroding International Restraints

With the New START treaty set to expire in 2026 and no sign yet that it will be renewed, it seems that the world is entering a new era without any treaty restraint on the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The US withdrawal from agreements such as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty further escalated the arms race with Russia, as the latter has developed missiles such as the 9M729.

At the same time, China has thus far refused to join treaties that would limit nuclear armament, since it views its own nuclear capabilities as far less than those of the US and Russia. This stance reflects Chinese ambitions to expand its clout without restraints, since China considers itself to be a rising nuclear power and is investing in bolstering nuclear capabilities. It has avoided committing to any restrictions related to nuclear non-proliferation systems.

Tensions between China and the US over Taiwan have played a key role in accelerating the arms race. For example, China launched military exercises that included the use of DF-21D missiles as a show of force.

Russia has also ramped up threats of using nuclear weapons as part of its strategy in Ukraine and even moved tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus. The US and Israel have also warned of the potential for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, since Iran is working on producing 60-percent enriched uranium, which is close to the level required for nuclear weapons production.

The US has also seen intense debates on the home front over whether its president should have absolute power over the use of nuclear force, given fears about reckless choices during international crises. This is particularly true in light of the increasing age of US presidents and concerns about their cognitive capabilities and how that could potentially affect nuclear decision-making.

Meanwhile, China is facing other challenges in the structure of its military-civilian relations following a series of firings of top military leaders and investigations into alleged corruption. This could affect the country’s military doctrine and use of nuclear weapons. In October 2023, China announced that its Minister of Defense Li Shangfu had been dismissed after he had disappeared from public view for two months, following allegations of corruption related to procurement of military equipment while he led the military’s procurement unit from 2017 to 2022. Reports also indicated that eight other top officials from the same unit were under investigation.

These dismissals occurred amidst an ongoing campaign to combat corruption within the Chinese military. There have recently been changes to top posts, including the removal of nine military officials from the Chinese National People’s Congress. Four of these were generals from the unit that was responsible for strategic missiles. It should be noted that Li Shangfu was one of two ministers of defense to be dismissed during a short period of time, which reflects efforts by Chinese leadership to promote discipline and fight corruption within military institutions.

Why Nuclear Weapons?

Traditionally, nuclear deterrence was the key driver for the arms race, particularly during the Cold War. The overarching principle was that huge nuclear arsenals would prevent countries from starting wars because of the catastrophic costs of any nuclear escalation. This was referred to as "mutually-assured destruction" (MAD), since the consequences of any party to a conflict using nuclear weapons were certain to be unacceptable to all. However, this explanation has been widely critiqued, especially on the grounds that it relies upon the premise that countries behave rationally, which might not always be the case. There are many alternative analyses for nuclear proliferation that have been proposed, including the following:

1- The result of an anarchic international order: Defensive realism holds that the nuclear arms race is the inevitable result of an anarchic international order. Since countries interact with each other in an environment without a central authority, they bolster their defensive capabilities to ensure their survival. However, these dynamics often lead to escalating arms races instead of reducing tensions, since any nuclear advantage can be seen as a direct threat.

2- The prisoner’s dilemma: According to a thought experiment known as the "prisoner’s dilemma," countries might find themselves caught in a nuclear arms race due to their fear that cooperation or disarmament could lead to superiority for their adversary. As per this thought experiment, countries will behave in ways that increase instability even though they are aware that a cooperative solution would be more beneficial to the group. In other words, countries will choose to acquire nuclear weapons in order achieve some degree of balance against their adversary rather than choose the uncertainty of relying on traditional weapons.

3- Paradoxes of perception: Countries sometimes develop incorrect impressions of the intent of other parties, which can lead to unintended escalation. Defensive actions by one country can be construed as offensive maneuvers by an adversary, which can lead to heightened tensions. For example, progress in peaceful nuclear programs could prompt a rival country to develop a military nuclear program to address that uncertainty, and therefore launch a nuclear arms race.

4- Pressures from the security dilemma: Countries are conscious of heightened and ongoing external threats to their survival and therefore invest in developing nontraditional weapons as a deterrent to potential aggression and to mitigate potential vulnerabilities to invasion by foreign powers with greater resources or clout. For example, the US is involved in protecting South Korea and providing military support and has an ongoing military presence in the immediate vicinity of North Korea. This has prompted North Korea to try to develop sophisticated nuclear weapons without the help of China and Russia, as part of its Juche doctrine of self-reliance in which it does not lean on its allies to build a nuclear umbrella.

5- Policies of nuclear maneuverability: Nuclear weapons are a bargaining chip in negotiations that can be used by some countries to obtain specific concessions from regional and international powers due to fears of nuclear weapons being used in a confrontation. The potential dismantling of a country’s nuclear program or at least allowing inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to visit nuclear sites have been used in negotiations in various contexts to get international sanctions lifted, secure aid, or ease international pressure. In regions such as the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent, geopolitical tensions have led to escalating nuclear arms races as countries try to achieve balance with their regional adversaries, which produces an endless cycle of competition.

Drifting Towards the Brink

The nuclear arms race entails many threats that increase international turmoil, since this results in deepening security instability and exacerbates tensions between countries. This could push the world towards risky scenarios that include the following dimensions:

1- Policies of strategic ambiguity: Countries have resorted to ambiguous doctrines to bolster deterrence and preserve their military superiority. However, this ambiguity could lead to misunderstandings between countries and increase the rise of unintended escalation. North Korea has adopted a policy based on ambiguity regarding whether or not it will use nuclear weapons in conflicts that affect it existence in order to keep the world constantly on edge about its intent and nuclear capabilities.

2- Likelihood of unintended escalation: Given the increasing number of nuclear-armed countries and the complexity of military systems, it is increasing likely that unintended escalation could occur as a result of technical errors, political miscalculations, or false alarms. Any of these scenarios could lead to catastrophic decisions. In 1983, there was a false alarm when Soviet systems believed that a US nuclear attack was underway and began to prepare for a comprehensive nuclear response. This incident attests to the possibility of drifting towards the brink as a result of errors in early warning systems.

3- Expanding regional arms races: Despite assumptions that nuclear arms races create more stable equilibria for mutual deterrence, which theoretically prevents direct military confrontation, the reality is that this results in escalating nuclear and traditional armament. In addition, it increases the likelihood of armed clashes between rival powers. For example, the fact that Pakistan and India acquired nuclear weapons neither prevented armed clashes between the two sides over Kashmir, nor stopped these countries from developing their traditional and nuclear arsenals and competing over acquiring more sophisticated weapons systems.

4- Nuclear non-proliferation systems falters: Despite international efforts towards nuclear disarmament, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), conflicting national interests and a lack of trust between countries have continued to pose an obstacle to tangible progress. Nuclear powers have often preferred to keep their weapons to ensure strategic superiority, which has blocked the path towards disarmament. The US withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) in 2019 led to growing concerns about the possibility of new treaties between major powers to restrain nuclear armament. There are heightened fears about other countries developing military nuclear capabilities despite international sanctions and pressure, which undermines mutual trust and has pushed a growing number of countries to withdraw from or fail to adhere to treaties.

5- Escalating threats of nuclear terrorism: The increasing number of nuclear reactors in fragile states could lead to an increased likelihood of nuclear weapons or radioactive materials falling into the hands of terrorist groups due to the lack of security at some of these nuclear installations. This kind of scenario could lead to the use of nuclear weapons beyond their traditional scope and could threaten international security in unprecedented ways. International sources have observed over the last two decades that there have been attempts by some terrorist or militant groups to obtain radioactive material and develop improvised bombs to release radiation in population centers.

6- Depleting economic and environmental resources: The nuclear arms race poses a major economic and environment burden for countries. The enormous spending required to upgrade nuclear arsenals and fund research and development programs comes at the expense of other development priorities. Likewise, non-secure storage of nuclear waste can have catastrophic environmental impacts, as was the case with the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, which highlighted the dangers of managing and storing nuclear materials.

7- A culture of nuclear shelters: Nuclear conflict has profound social and psychological impacts on people, producing a constant state of fear and turmoil given the potential for nuclear war to erupt. During the Cold War, the nuclear arms race between the US and Soviet Union led to a culture of building nuclear shelters and fears of a world war. At the present moment, North Korea’s constant threats regarding its nuclear weapons have produced fear among the populations of South Korea and Japan, and led to increased support for stringent military measures.

In conclusion, the escalating nuclear arm race demonstrates that the world is currently at a very perilous crossroads. Although nuclear weapons are theoretically a tool of deterrence, they have increasingly become a catalyst for conflict due to the expansion of nuclear arsenals and shifts in the military doctrines of nuclear powers. In addition, new military applications of these weapons in outer and cyber space have drawn attention to chaotic and unpredictable scenarios. This is of particular concern in light of the erosion of the nuclear non-proliferation system and the expansion of strategies of nuclear ambiguity and maneuverability, which increase the potential for unintended escalation.

Deescalating this concerning state of affairs will require nontraditional approaches that go beyond policies based on arms races. Instead of bolstering nuclear arsenals, countries must endeavor to foster an international environment that supports nonproliferation and increases transparency and mutual trust. Major powers must also realize that national security cannot be sustainably achieved through military superiority alone, but rather must be pursued through committing to policies that enable the world to step back from the nuclear precipice.

Why is the Global Nuclear Arms Race Escalating?