The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) is the last remaining nuclear arms control agreement between the United States and Russia. Signed in 2010, the treaty expires in February 2026 unless both parties agree to extend it.

February looms large with the war in Ukraine dominating events in Europe, but another complication is that Russian President Vladimir Putin has already suspended the treaty over US support for Ukraine. With tensions at critical highs, the future of this important agreement hangs in the balance.

What Does New START Do?

The New START treaty limits Russia and America to 1,550 deployed strategic warheads and 700 deployed delivery systems each – deployed meaning on active duty, ready for use. This includes intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic missiles and strategic nuclear bombers. The agreement also involves a robust verification regime, with data exchanges and short-notice inspections providing unusual transparency in an era otherwise marked by paranoid suspicion.

The treaty had been working well. It capped numbers at verifiable levels, and the likelihood of leaders making faulty decisions is naturally reduced when verified facts replace fertile imaginations. It’s understandable that pressure on a country to expand its nuclear arsenal grows stronger if no credible method exists to confirm what the other side is doing.

Why It Matters

For decades, American and Russian arms control treaties improved stability by limiting the nuclear arms race. It was universally recognized that nuclear arsenals had grown to obscene levels, and New START was the latest in a series of agreements attempting to control their numbers.

But the looming expiration of New START means that – for the first time since the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963 – no legally binding agreement will exist to limit the two largest nuclear arsenals in the world.

The End of an Arms Control Era

The possible expiration of New START comes on the heels of a broader collapse of the nuclear arms control framework. The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty was terminated in 2002. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty ended in 2019. And the Open Skies Treaty – designed to build trust by allowing unarmed reconnaissance flights – unraveled in 2020.

New START is not just another treaty. It is the last remaining constraint on nuclear superpower competition. With world events and shifting alliances moving in unpredictable directions, the loss of New START is the last thing we need.

Why the Treaty Is at Risk

Political hostility between Washington and Moscow is the greatest obstacle to renewal. The war in Ukraine has sparked a low point in relations not seen since the 1980s. And suspension of onsite inspections has further deepened mistrust.

Timing is another complication. Extending or replacing New START requires serious negotiations at a moment when the two sides are barely speaking to each other. And politicians can always be counted on as well. Officials facing domestic criticism often attempt to misdirect attention and rally support by claiming their country is under an outside threat that must take priority.

What Expiration Would Mean

New START’s permanent demise could spark a new and less predictable nuclear arms race. Loss of verification measures would hurt the most. Data exchanges and physical inspections provide concrete assurance that the other side is not cheating. Worst-case assumptions dominate without them. More weapons are then built that we dare not use, or worse, weapons that we do.

The ripple effects of New START’s demise would also extend far beyond Washington and Moscow. North Korea and China – which are both expanding their nuclear arsenals – would certainly notice the treaty’s demise. The already fragile Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) could also suffer damage as most countries lose faith in the commitment of nuclear-armed nations to eventually disarm as the NPT requires.

Lessons from the Past

History suggests that arms control is difficult to resurrect once lost. The suspended INF Treaty is still inactive. The ABM Treaty’s demise spurred the development of advanced Russian weapons designed to defeat missile defense systems.

New START’s expiration could likewise trigger an exotic nuclear space race with no limits on destabilizing nuclear weapons of any kind.

Does a Path Forward Still Exist?

Despite the bleak outlook, opportunities remain. Washington and Moscow have cooperated on nuclear issues during confrontational periods in the past. The original START I treaty was signed during the Cold War. Negotiations for the Limited Test Ban Treaty grew more urgent during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1963.

Some experts argue that extending New START, even temporarily, would buy valuable time. Others call for a new, more comprehensive treaty that includes not just the U.S. and Russia but also China with its rapidly expanding nuclear arsenal.

What is clear is that continued inaction carries serious risks. Allowing New START to expire without crafting a replacement would render the nuclear landscape immensely more dangerous.

The Stakes for Humanity

New START involves more than just numbers and verification procedures. It’s about lives.

The logic of deterrence is more dangerous without treaties to limit destruction if deterrence fails. Misunderstandings, technical malfunctions, or political misjudgments can all end in catastrophe. At a time when global confrontations increasingly strain international relations, introducing an unlimited nuclear arms race with modern, technologically-advanced weapons would multiply risks beyond measure.

Treaties like New START save trillions that can be used in better ways, yet the world still spends nearly $300 million a day on nuclear weapons. The financial and human costs will be incalculable if the treaty expires and another nuclear arms race begins.

A Policy Choice

At Our Planet Project Foundation, we believe the survival of New START—or a substantial successor treaty—is an essential stopgap measure for our continued survival.

Our choice is stark. We can let the treaty expire, or we can take the path of negotiation, compromise, and hopefully life. The eventual goal is nuclear disarmament, but treaties that limit nuclear weapons are critical steps on the path toward achieving that goal.