Three truths about the end of new START and what it means for strategic competition

The 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the last remaining bilateral nuclear arms control agreement between the United States and Russia, expires February 5. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeated an offer to informally continue to observe the treaty limits for an additional year. Barring a last-minute reprieve from President Donald Trump, the end of New START will be the end of an era for nuclear arms control.

Here’s what the end of New START does and does not mean for strategic competition: The end of New START does not augur the start of an arms race. The end of New START does not mean the United States will automatically and massively build up its nuclear arsenal. And the end of New START does not equal the end of arms control; rather, this may be the beginning of a new era of arms control. Arms control must adapt to the moment. And this moment calls for diversifying and expanding the U.S. nuclear arsenal, paired with a new approach to arms control.

The end of New START has prompted fears of a new arms race. Senator Ed Markey warned, “If the U.S. exceeds New START limits by uploading warheads, Russia will do the same, and China will use it as another excuse to build up their nuclear arsenal.” The United States has shown exceptional restraint over the past decade in not expanding its arsenal and remaining committed to a modernization program since 2012. In a 2024 interview, the head of the New START delegation, Rose Gottemoeller, explained ongoing U.S. nuclear modernization as, “it’s not about a buildup or a nuclear arms race—the modernization that we are undertaking. But it is about a replacement of obsolescent systems that are no longer safe to operate.” But without the constraints of New START, these fears of an arms race have become more acute if the United States decides to build up, and Russia or China responds.

Read more at Center for Strategic and International Studies