Why has the nuclear arms race in the world intensified?

Nuclear power has evolved from being merely a traditional deterrent to a means of reshaping the global order and demonstrating influence in a highly turbulent and conflict-prone international environment. Current military strategies indicate that major powers, such as the United States, Russia, and China, are engaged in a complex arms race whose implications extend into outer space and the cyber realm, opening the door to unprecedented conflicts. In the absence of effective arms control agreements and amid rising regional and international tensions, the nuclear threat has become more urgent, with increasing risks associated with nuclear escalation and unforeseen incidents. According to 2023 reports, global spending on nuclear weapons programs was approximately $83 billion, reflecting a heightened focus on developing these programs.

The legacy of traditional deterrence

The nuclear arms race is a relic of the bipolar system that emerged in the mid-20th century when competition between the two main poles—the United States and the former Soviet Union—intensified, driving them to develop and possess the largest possible nuclear arsenals, either for deterrence or strategic military superiority. During the Cold War, the two superpowers relied on the principle of nuclear deterrence or “Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD), which rendered the use of nuclear weapons a deadly option for both sides, yet it did not prevent ongoing competition to advance nuclear technology. With the end of the Cold War, the nuclear arms race transitioned from a bipolar confrontation to a multilateral phenomenon involving regional powers like India, Pakistan, and China, alongside advanced nuclear programs in countries like North Korea and Iran.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the conclusion of the Cold War in the 1990s, literature and studies have accepted the premise that nuclear weapons have become unusable, serving as deterrent tools to maintain balance without the potential for deployment in armed conflicts. They are perceived as mechanisms for deterrence and national sovereignty protection. However, reductions in nuclear arsenals could lead to a conventional arms race to fill the gaps, thereby increasing instability. The U.S. dominance and unipolarity in the early 1990s significantly contributed to the decline in the nuclear arms race, catalyzing the non-proliferation regime and enforcing controls on developing military nuclear programs.

Studies have focused on various issues such as the immense costs of developing nuclear arsenals and their impact on national economies, unconventional threats like the environmental consequences of the unsafe storage of nuclear weapons and waste, and the risks of nuclear radiation proliferation. There has also been a substantial rise in studies related to nuclear non-proliferation and arms control, emphasizing the analysis of the international system for nuclear weapons proliferation and the challenges it faces. In other words, the focus has shifted to the nuclear phenomenon as a holistic unit rather than merely a military issue.

The return to nuclear escalation

Recently, the world has witnessed a significant increase in indicators of nuclear escalation and an arms race, with rising tensions between major nuclear powers like the United States, Russia, and China, alongside the emergence of new players in the nuclear arena, and growing ambitions to acquire and deploy nuclear weapons in international conflicts.

Expansion of China’s nuclear arsenal: Recent reports indicate that China is rapidly expanding its nuclear arsenal, adding approximately 100 new nuclear warheads in a single year, bringing the total to over 600 by mid-2024. The number is expected to exceed 1,000 by 2030. China has constructed 320 new launch platforms for its intercontinental ballistic missiles, such as the DF-41, which can carry multiple warheads and target sites in the United States. As of 2024, China is estimated to have spent about $11 billion on developing and modernizing its nuclear arsenal, marking a significant shift in its defense strategy.

Changes in Russian nuclear doctrine: Russian President Vladimir Putin has announced changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine, lowering the threshold for nuclear weapon use. This shift reflects Russia’s reliance on nuclear deterrence as leverage against the West. Russia continues to develop hypersonic missile systems like Avangard and Kinzhal, increasing the difficulty of countering them while asserting its capability to deliver rapid and precise strategic strikes. Reports indicate that Russia possesses the largest number of nuclear warheads globally, totaling around 5,977 in 2024, reinforcing its position as a major nuclear power.

Comprehensive modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal: The United States has allocated approximately 1.7trilliontomodernizeitsnucleararsenal,includingthedevelopmentofnuclearsubmarinesliketheColumbiaclassandnewMinutemanIIImissiles.TheU.S.expenditureonitsnuclearprogramsreachedaround1.7trilliontomodernizeitsnucleararsenal,includingthedevelopmentofnuclearsubmarinesliketheColumbiaclassandnewMinutemanIIImissiles.TheU.S.expenditureonitsnuclearprogramsreachedaround43 billion in 2023, the highest globally, reflecting its commitment to maintaining nuclear supremacy, with approximately 3,708 warheads distributed across strategic sites and diverse armament programs.

Increased nuclear militarization of space: Major powers are expanding their nuclear strategies to include outer space. This includes developing advanced technologies for anti-satellite missiles and space capabilities integrated with nuclear deterrence systems. China has developed an ASAT system to disable U.S. satellites, while Russia is working on anti-satellite missiles like Nudol. The U.S. is believed to be heavily investing in offensive space systems such as the X-37B to secure its superiority in space warfare.

Russia, for its part, will continue to develop innovative weapons, including nuclear systems designated for use in space, providing it with an additional strategic advantage and highlighting its maneuverability against the U.S. and its allies. Russia’s satellite Kosmos-2553 orbits in what is known as a “graveyard orbit,” an area rarely used due to high radiation exposure, exemplifying a new nuclear arms race. U.S. reports have indicated that this satellite carries a mock warhead, raising suspicions about its potential use as a platform for testing nuclear weapons capable of destroying satellites in space.

Moreover, major countries have launched an increasing number of military-use satellites. Examples include the U.S. KH-11 surveillance satellite, China’s Gaofen, and Russia’s Tundra for early warning of nuclear attacks. These satellites enhance targeting accuracy for ballistic missiles or disrupt enemy communication systems, making them critical tools in future nuclear conflicts. China has also participated in this race, allocating approximately $3 billion for the development of its space programs related to weapons.

5. Increased focus on cyber warfare: Major powers are developing advanced cyber systems capable of launching attacks on adversaries’ nuclear and space systems. In this context, artificial intelligence is utilized to target opponents’ nuclear capabilities, as cyber attacks can disrupt nuclear command and control systems. The United States is estimated to invest about $10 billion annually in nuclear cyber programs.

Erosion of international controls

With the impending expiration of the New START treaty in 2026 and lack of prospects for renewal, the world appears to be entering a new stage devoid of any restrictions on the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The U.S. withdrawal from treaties such as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty has exacerbated the arms race with Russia, as the latter has developed missiles like the 9M729.

On another front, China continues to refuse joining arms control treaties, asserting that its nuclear capabilities are still far behind those of the U.S. and Russia. This stance reflects its ambitions to expand its influence without constraints, as China considers itself an emerging nuclear power and thus invests in strengthening its nuclear capabilities, preferring to avoid commitments under the non-proliferation regime. Tensions between China and the U.S. over Taiwan play a pivotal role in accelerating the arms race, evidenced by China’s military maneuvers involving the use of DF-21D missiles as a show of force.

Additionally, Russia has escalated its nuclear threats as part of its strategy in Ukraine, including the transfer of tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus. Meanwhile, the U.S. and Israel warn of the potential for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, as Iran enriches uranium to 60%, bringing it closer to weapons-grade levels.

Internally, fierce debates are taking place in the U.S. regarding whether the president should have unilateral authority to use nuclear weapons, fueled by concerns over hasty decisions during international crises amid rising ages of U.S. presidents and fears of declining cognitive abilities affecting nuclear decision-making.

China, on its part, faces other challenges in its civil-military relations structure amid a series of dismissals of key military leaders and investigations into corruption allegations. In October 2024, China announced the dismissal of Defense Minister Li Shangfu following a two-month disappearance due to corruption allegations related to military equipment purchases during his tenure in charge of the military procurement department from 2017 to 2022. Reports indicated that eight other senior officials from the same unit were also under investigation.

These dismissals are part of an ongoing campaign against corruption within the Chinese military, which has seen recent high-level changes, including the dismissal of nine military officials from the Chinese parliament, among them four generals from the strategic missile unit. It is noteworthy that Li Shangfu is the second Chinese defense minister to be dismissed in a short period, reflecting the Chinese leadership’s efforts to reinforce discipline and combat corruption within the military institution.

Why nuclear weapons?

Traditionally, nuclear deterrence was the primary driver of the arms race, especially during the Cold War, where the governing principle was that the existence of massive nuclear arsenals prevented states from waging wars due to the catastrophic costs of any nuclear escalation, framed within the equation of “Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD), ensuring that the consequences for any party that opts to use nuclear weapons are unacceptable. However, this theory faces numerous criticisms, the most notable being its reliance on the rationality of states, which may not always be realistic. Conversely, there are several alternative interpretations, the most prominent of which are as follows:

Dealing with the chaos of the international system: Defensive realism posits that the nuclear arms race is an inevitable outcome of the chaotic state of the international system, where states interact in an environment lacking central authority, prompting them to enhance their defensive capabilities for survival. However, this dynamic often leads to an escalation of the arms race rather than a reduction in tensions, as any nuclear superiority is viewed as a direct threat.

Trapped in the “prisoner’s dilemma”: The prisoner’s dilemma suggests that states find themselves caught in a nuclear arms race due to their fears that cooperation or disarmament will lead to an advantage for their adversaries. In this model, states behave in ways that enhance instability, despite recognizing that collaborative solutions may be more beneficial for all. In other words, states prefer possessing nuclear weapons as they provide a crucial measure of balance against adversaries when compared to the ambiguity and uncertainty associated with traditional arms-based power balances.

Impacts of “cognitive paradoxes”: This refers to the misperceptions about the intentions of other parties that can lead to unintended escalation. For instance, defensive actions by one state may be interpreted as offensive measures by adversaries, increasing tensions. For example, advancements in a rival state’s peaceful nuclear program could trigger the development of a military nuclear program to hedge against uncertain probabilities, thus falling into a nuclear arms race.

Pressures from the “security dilemma”: States’ awareness of high and persistent levels of external threats to their survival often drives them to invest in developing unconventional weapons to deter potential aggression and counter possibilities of being invaded by more powerful nations in terms of status, resources, and size. For instance, U.S. involvement in guaranteeing military security for South Korea has prompted North Korea to develop advanced nuclear weapons capable of operating independently of China and Russia under its Juche Doctrine, which emphasizes self-reliance in nuclear capability building.

Policies of “nuclear maneuvering”: Nuclear weapons are viewed as leverage in negotiations, utilized by certain international powers to extract concessions from regional and global powers due to fears surrounding nuclear confrontations. There have been instances where the promise to abandon nuclear programs or at least allow inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency on nuclear sites has been used to lift international sanctions or secure aid or alleviate international pressures. In regions like the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent, geopolitical tensions contribute to a nuclear arms race as states aim to achieve a balance with regional adversaries, leading to a continuous cycle of competition.

Drifting towards the abyss

The nuclear arms race entails numerous threats that intensify disruptions in international interactions, deepening security instability and escalating tensions among nations, potentially driving the world towards dangerous scenarios. This drift towards the abyss manifests in several aspects:

Strategic ambiguity policy: States resort to ambiguous doctrines to enhance deterrence and maintain military superiority. However, this ambiguity breeds misunderstandings among states and increases the risk of unintended escalation. North Korea, for instance, follows a policy of ambiguity regarding its potential use of nuclear weapons in conflicts affecting its existence, thereby keeping the world in a constant state of anxiety regarding its nuclear intentions and capabilities.

Possibilities of unintended escalation: As the number of nuclear-armed states grows and military systems become more complex, the risk of unintended escalation becomes more realistic due to technological errors, political miscalculations, or false alarms that could lead to catastrophic decisions. The false alarm incident in 1983 when Soviet systems mistakenly believed a U.S. nuclear attack was underway and prepared for a full nuclear response serves as a model for the potential drift to the brink due to errors in early warning systems.

Expansion of the regional arms race: Although arms control theorists suggest that nuclear armament creates more stable deterrence equations that theoretically should avoid direct military confrontations, it often results in escalating conventional and nuclear arms races and the likelihood of armed conflicts between competing powers. For example, the nuclear capabilities of both Pakistan and India did not prevent military confrontations over the Kashmir region, nor did it halt their continued development of conventional and nuclear weapons and competition for acquiring advanced armament systems.

Stalled non-proliferation systems: Despite international efforts for nuclear disarmament, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), diverging national interests and mutual distrust between nations hinder achieving tangible progress. Nuclear-armed states often prefer to retain their arsenals to ensure strategic superiority, stalling disarmament progress. The U.S. withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) in 2019 heightened doubts about the possibility of reaching new nuclear arms control agreements among major powers, reinforcing concerns about the potential development of military nuclear capabilities by other nations despite sanctions and international pressures, undermining mutual trust and prompting more nations to withdraw from treaties and disregard their terms.

Escalating nuclear terrorism threats: The widespread proliferation of nuclear reactors in fragile states increases the likelihood that nuclear weapons or radioactive materials may reach terrorist organizations due to inadequate security at some nuclear facilities. Such scenarios could lead to the use of nuclear weapons in unconventional ways, posing unprecedented threats to international security. Over the past two decades, international sources have observed attempts by certain terrorist organizations and armed groups to acquire radioactive materials and develop crude bombs to spread radiation in urban centers and large gathering areas.

Economic and environmental resource depletion: The nuclear arms race places a significant burden on countries, economically and environmentally. Huge expenditures on modernizing nuclear arsenals and research and development programs come at the expense of other developmental priorities, while unsafe storage of nuclear waste leaves catastrophic environmental impacts, akin to the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, revealing the dangers of handling and managing nuclear materials.

Spread of nuclear shelter culture: Nuclear conflicts have profound psychological and social effects on populations, engendering a culture of fear and constant anxiety regarding the possibility of nuclear war. During the Cold War, the nuclear arms race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union fostered a “nuclear shelter culture” and fears of apocalyptic scenarios. Currently, North Korea’s threats and constant nuclear posturing raise anxiety levels among populations in South Korea and Japan, supporting the implementation of stringent military measures.

In conclusion, the intensification of the nuclear arms race indicates that the world stands at a perilous crossroads. While nuclear weapons are theoretically deterrent tools, they have increasingly become conflict triggers due to the expansion of nuclear arsenals and changes in the military doctrines of nuclear states. Moreover, new military applications in space and cyberspace reveal more chaotic and unpredictable scenarios, especially in light of the erosion of the nuclear non-proliferation system and the expansion of nuclear ambiguity and maneuvering strategies that increase the likelihood of unintended escalations.

Addressing this concerning landscape requires unconventional approaches that go beyond traditional arms race policies. Rather than reinforcing nuclear arsenals, efforts should focus on creating an international environment that supports arms reduction, enhances transparency, and builds mutual trust. Major powers must recognize that achieving national security will not be sustainable through military superiority alone but through commitments to policies that prevent drifting towards the nuclear brink.