After midnight on February 5, 2026, the final remaining nuclear arms control agreement between the United States and Russia, known as the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), will expire.
This will result in a situation where, for the first time since the early 1970s, there will be no legally binding limits on American and Russian strategic nuclear forces.
The end of New START will mark the end of the last remaining Cold War treaty amid unstable U.S.-Russia relations.
Considering the situation to be really grave, “the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists” has moved its metaphorical Doomsday Clock another notch toward “midnight” of worldwide catastrophe. It now sits closer than it ever has: 85 seconds to midnight, the closest the Clock has ever been to midnight in its history.
Alexandra Bell, president and CEO, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, has said: “The Doomsday Clock’s message cannot be clearer. Catastrophic risks are on the rise, cooperation is on the decline, and we are running out of time. Change is both necessary and possible, but the global community must demand swift action from their leaders.”
The Doomsday Clock time is annually determined by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Science and Security Board (SASB) in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes eight Nobel Laureates. Major factors in 2026 included growing nuclear threats, disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), multiple biological security concerns, and the ongoing climate crisis.
The Clock’s time changed most recently in January 2025, when the Doomsday Clock was set at 89 seconds to midnight.
Of course, in its statement, DOOMSDAY Clock has discussed many dangerous global developments, including climate change, the misuse of biotechnology, the potential threat of artificial intelligence, and other apocalyptic dangers. But in its list of dangers, “the risks of nuclear war” figure prominently.
According to Jon B. Wolfsthal, director of global risk at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) and SASB member, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “In 2025, it was almost impossible to identify a nuclear issue that got better. More states are relying more intently on nuclear weapons, multiple states are openly talking about using nuclear weapons for not only deterrence but for coercion. Hundreds of billions are being spent to modernize and expand nuclear arsenals all over the world, and more and more non-nuclear states are considering whether they should acquire their own nuclear weapons or are hedging their nuclear bets. Instead of stoking the fires of the nuclear arms competition, nuclear states are reducing their own security and putting the entire planet at risk.
“Leaders of all states must relearn the lessons of the Cold War – no one wins a nuclear arms race, and the only way to reduce nuclear dangers is through a binding agreement to limit the size and shape of their nuclear arsenals”.
It may be noted that the New START Treaty was signed by then-US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, in Prague on April 8, 2010. It entered into force the following year.
This treaty superseded a 2002 treaty that had obligated Russia and the United States to reduce their operationally deployed, strategic nuclear warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 by the end of 2012.
The New START Treaty called for further reductions in long-range nuclear weapons and provided greater specificity about different types of launchers. The new limits were:
-
700 deployed intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (together with heavy bombers)
-
1,550 nuclear warheads deployed on those platforms, and
-
800 launchers (both deployed and non-deployed).
Reportedly, these reductions were achieved by February 5, 2018.
The treaty provided for twice-yearly exchanges of data and ongoing mutual notification about the movement of strategic nuclear forces. It also mandated short-notice, on-site inspections of missiles, warheads, and launchers covered by the treaty, providing valuable and stabilizing insights into the other’s nuclear deployments.
Originally signed for 10 years, the New START Treaty was extended for a final five-year period in 2021.
It may be noted that Russia formally suspended its participation in the verification processes in February 2023 due to tensions over the war in Ukraine. It halted on-site inspections and data exchanges, effectively ending the treaty’s verification regime years before its scheduled expiration.
However, it is important to note that, despite disallowing the verification measures, Moscow claimed it would still abide by the numerical limits envisaged under the treaty. And this, all told, helped the U.S. and Russia to avoid serious or dangerous nuclear face-offs.
It continued to provide each side with critical insight into the other’s activities, thereby imposing constraints that led to the world’s nuclear stockpile shrinking from around 70,400 warheads in 1986 to 12,500 today, first through the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) and then through New START.
These restraints may not be there from tomorrow.
And that means Russia and the U.S. could increase their deployed warheads by 60% and 110%, respectively, within a matter of months.
After all, both have the capacity to load a larger number of warheads on their missiles and bombers than they currently do. By doing so, both countries could effectively double their deployed strategic nuclear arsenals.
What is said to be further ominous for the global strategic environment is the U.S. President Donald Trump’s plans to accelerate America’s advanced missile defence capabilities, including against nuclear weapons, under the ‘Golden Dome’ on the one hand and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s revelation of two new weapons systems – the Burevestnik nuclear-armed, nuclear-powered cruise missile and the Poseidon nuclear-armed, nuclear-powered undersea drone.
Some experts are also worried about the timing of New START’s demise, which comes ahead of the 2026 Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in the spring, because it would signal that instead of showing restraint and demonstrating progress on disarmament and arms control, nuclear-weapon states are just doing the opposite.
That could deepen divisions between nuclear and non-nuclear states and weaken the credibility of the NPT.
However, there is still some room for optimism that things could remain under control. Russian President Putin has proposed extending observance of New START’s numerical limits beyond the treaty’s expiration.
Experts say that if President Trump is interested in “denuclearization,” as he claims, he could build on Putin’s proposal and find common ground.
Last September, Putin proposed that the two countries agree to mutually observe New START’s three numerical limits—700 deployed strategic ballistic missiles and nuclear-capable heavy bombers, 800 deployed or non-deployed strategic ballistic missile launchers and nuclear-capable heavy bombers, and 1,550 warheads on deployed strategic delivery systems—for one additional year, that is, until February 2027.
Then, in November, a Russian foreign ministry official suggested that Moscow was willing to voluntarily extend the limits further.
On his part, President Trump had said in July last year that he did not want New START to expire. When Putin spoke about extending New START, Trump told reporters, “It sounds like a good idea to me.”
However, in November, Trump was said to have complicated matters by raising the China factor. He said that negotiations on any future nuclear arms control agreements must include China.
As of now, he has stuck to that position; his last statement on the issue – an answer to a query from the New York Times – is that “If it ( new START) expires, it expires,” and that he would prefer a “better” replacement that would ideally include China.
But then there is no precedent for any trilateral nuclear control or disarmament negotiations. Besides, though growing, China’s arsenal is still less than 12% the size of the U.S. arsenal and less than 11% the size of Russia’s.
Viewed thus, the only realistic way to keep the spirit of the new START alive is to build on Putin’s idea of curbing a nuclear arms race and to suggest improvements, if any. Russian officials say that they are waiting for the response from Washington.
The ball, therefore, lies in Trump’s court.
- Author and veteran journalist Prakash Nanda is Chairman of the Editorial Board of the EurAsian Times and has been commenting on politics, foreign policy, and strategic affairs for nearly three decades. He is a former National Fellow of the Indian Council for Historical Research and a recipient of the Seoul Peace Prize Scholarship.
- CONTACT: prakash.nanda (at) hotmail.com
