Could end of New START treaty be a ‘new start’ to a nuclear arms race?

The New START was signed by president Barack Obama and Russian president Dmitry Medvedev and limits each country to no more than 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 deployed delivery systems including missiles, bombers and submarines. 

The treaty also covers verification measures, including on-site inspections and exhibitions, data exchanges and notifications related to strategic offensive arms and facilities covered by the treaty, and provisions to facilitate the use of national technical means for treaty monitoring. To increase confidence and transparency, the treaty also provides for an annual exchange of telemetry on an agreed number of ICBM and SLBM launches.

The New START time frame is, however, coming to an end in February 2021 and if not signed could give free reign to both parties to once again beef up their nuclear armaments and cause a new cold war style arms race both in terms of increased arsenals and increased spending.

The good news for those wanting to avoid such an outcome is that the treaty can be extended for another five years without the need for approvals through American Congress and the Russian Duma. this means that President Trump and President Vladimir Putin can sign an extension with just their agreement and signatures. This is where President Trump has seen an opportunity for his bigger, more expansive deal. 

Easy route to extension

There is very little obstacles to the President signing an extension; it has bilateral support in the US Congress and 80 per cent of the of the American public support extending arms control measures according to a poll from Center for International and Security Studies in Maryland. The exit of John Bolton, a long-term blockage to arms controls agreements, as President Trump's national security adviser also removed another impediment to the extension. Signing an extension while also promising to build on the previous treaty may also be boasted to have improved on the deal signed by the Obama administration. 

Furthermore, President Putin has already explicitly stated that he was prepared to sign an extension without any preconditions or further negotiation needed, as well as confirming that the treaty will also cover new Russian strategic delivery systems including; a new heavy intercontinental ballistic missile and a new hyper-sonic glide vehicle. 

VIEW ALL

The bigger deal

So, what is President Trump looking for in his new "bigger deal". In January of 2019, he first hinted to a different deal in his January address to the nation, raising concerns of a new arms race and also signalling his intention to bring China into negotiations.

"Perhaps we can negotiate a different agreement, adding China and others, or perhaps we can't," President Trump said. "In which case, we will outspend and out-innovate all others by far."

In his more expansive agreement, President Trump is seeking a deal that encompasses more than just strategic nuclear weapons, but also smaller low-yield tactical weapons. Furthermore, his main focus is to bring China into a trilateral agreement the likes of which the world has not yet seen.

Thomas Countryman, a former US assistant to the secretary of state for international security and nonproliferation, and chair of the board of the Arms Control Association, has highlighted the difficulties President Trump is likely facing in his effort to bring china into the deal. 

Bringing China to the table

"Trump’s belief that China is currently interested in negotiations on a three-way nuclear arms control pact with Russia is a fantasy, much like his assertions that China bears the cost of US tariffs, or that Mexico will pay for the US border wall. Beijing’s inventory of nuclear warheads is just 5 per cent of Washington’s or Moscow’s, so it has no logical incentive to join negotiations aimed at permanently locking in a numerical advantage for two superpowers whose stars, in Chinese eyes, are fading," Countryman said in an article for World Politics Review in December. 

Countryman continues: "The best minds in the US government seem no closer to devising an incentive for China to participate. Like 17th century mariners sent by European kings to find the Northwest Passage to Asia, they are doggedly seeking a path that simply doesn’t exist."

Failure to meet the deadline may not have immediate consequences but could very well start the clock ticking towards a dangerous pattern of distrust or speculation between the two powers. Without the transparency provided by the monitoring and verification scheme, a loss of understanding of each other's capabilities may lead to each side guessing or assuming the opposition's capabilities and attempting to best them through development and greater procurement. 

Along with the security threat this kind of build up will produce, the finances needed for such actions would be likely to skyrocket well above the current estimated US$1.7 trillion already committed to the 30-year up-keep and modernisation of its nuclear arsenal.

Countryman argues that the outcome from not signing a new agreement could be entirely contrary to President Trump's current aims: "The collapse of New START risks replicating Cold War-thinking about how to 'win' a 'limited' nuclear war by expanding the number of tactical nuclear weapons and delivery systems. And the lack of limitations and transparency on Russian and American arsenals will give Beijing a strong incentive to speed up expansion of its own nuclear options."

Will Trump bide his time too long?

With no deal in sight and both presidents continuing to display readiness to expand arsenals once again if needed, if the relatively easy decision to re-sign does not occur the world will have to prepare for a new era of uncertainty and increased tension. 

Ultimately an extension to the New START deal would still keep open the option of future talks regarding a new deal that could include both tactical weapons and bringing China into the fold. However, this would likely occur long after President Trump has left office, which may not be to his liking. 

As always comments and insights are greatly appreciated. Feel free to let us know your thoughts in the comment section below or contact This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..