VUYISILE RADEBE | The uncomfortable discovery: the race is already lost

On February 5, one of the last critical pillars of the global nuclear arms control regime, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start), expired.

This has raised global concerns about the resumption of a general nuclear arms race that was held in check by a comprehensive set of strategic arms treaties between the two major nuclear superpowers, the US and the Russian Federation (the successor state to the now-defunct Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or USSR).

The 2018 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri) Yearbook estimated that the Russian Federation and the US possess about 95% of the world’s nuclear weapons, with the rest shared among other declared and undeclared nuclear powers such as France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel.

In the 2025 Sipri Yearbook no significant change was recorded, though China has intensified efforts at developing its own nuclear arsenal ostensibly to achieve mutually assured destruction (MAD) capability as deterrence against possible future US aggression.

The strategic thinking that informs the systematic dismantling of global arms control by the US has been predicated on the need to derive a nuclear first-strike advantage against Russia.

With the world now teetering on the brink of World War 3, which might include a nuclear exchange among nuclear powers vying for regional or global dominance, or due to desperation, miscalculation or outright brinkmanship on the part of one of these powers, it becomes important to take a closer look at this issue, as it might spell the end of human civilisation as we know it.

How did we arrive here?

The Cold War logic of strategic balance between the two nuclear superpowers relied heavily on the MAD concept. The concept was concretised in the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty signed on May 26 1972, which imposed limitations on the quantity and quality of intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) systems each country can deploy. Each country was allowed to deploy only one ABM system to protect the capital and another system to protect the ICBM launchers to ensure retaliation against a surprise first nuclear strike from the other party. The Bush administration quit the ABM Treaty in 2002, alleging Russian non-compliance with the provisions of the treaty, allegations that were denied by Russia.

The collapse of the USSR and the Cold War in the early 1990s left the US as the sole superpower in the world. The sense of triumphalism that became the hallmark of American foreign policy and the quest to maintain hegemony led to the systematic dismantling of the global arms control regime by the US.

The idea behind this course of action was to lock in American advantage and ensure all impediments, including international law and treaties it previously entered into with other countries, notably Russia, are not allowed to hamper America’s march to absolute global supremacy. The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was launched, and there was nothing to stop the US from using its overwhelming military and economic power to turn the whole planet into its own image by force if necessary. Other key treaties that the subsequent Trump administration viewed as impediments to American hegemony were the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty and the 1992 Open Skies Treaty, from which the US withdrew in 2019.

In her 2025 briefing to the UN Security Council, Gaukhar Mukhadzanova, a senior fellow from the autonomous UN Institute for Disarmament Research, expressed the widely held concern when she said: “We are observing the disintegration of the arms control architecture that was built primarily through negotiations between the [then] Soviet Union ― and subsequently Russia ― and the US.”

She then expressed cautious optimism that there was still room for improvement given diplomatic signals that Russia and the US might extend the New Start Treaty upon its expiry in 2026 or negotiate for its replacement. The US, however, allowed the treaty to expire by not responding to Russian overtures to extend the treaty by one year while negotiating for its replacement before the February 5 expiry date. When one examines the current geopolitical developments, including the stated intentions of the US to resume nuclear tests, the situation changes from Mukhadzanova’s cautious optimism to what I call a bleak moment for mankind.

US strategic thinking

The strategic thinking that informs the systematic dismantling of global arms control by the US has been predicated on the need to derive nuclear first-strike advantage against Russia.

It should be recalled that the Wolfowitz Doctrine, articulated in the US defence guidance plan of 1994–1998 by the influential former deputy defence secretary, Alfred Wolfowitz, who later joined the PNAC, acknowledges that Russia is the only country capable of destroying the US due to its huge nuclear arsenal inherited from the erstwhile USSR.

The implications of a world without nuclear guardrails to ensure strategic stability are dire not only for non-proliferation and regional and global stability but also for the fate of mankind.

Therefore, if the US puts to good use its huge defence budget, coupled with its military and technological superiority, to create an impenetrable missile defence system, which Trump calls the “Golden Dome”, and deploys some of its elements around Russia, the MAD concept would fall off and allow the US to enjoy undisputed nuclear first-strike capability against a helpless Russia. If achieved, this would allow the US to dictate terms to Russia ― terms it could not afford to refuse.

The above briefly sums up the strategic thinking of the US political and military leadership. However, I tend to agree with Andrei Martyanov, a Russo-American military analyst, who views the approach of the American ruling elite to matters of global stability not as strategic foresight, but as strategic myopia.

The horse has already bolted

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US maintained a huge defence budget, which for decades exceeded by a large margin the total of 10 other countries with large defence budgets taken together, including Russia, China, India, and Saudi Arabia. In spite of its immense resources, the US seems to have lost the arms race that it started. This bitter truth has proved difficult for America to accept.

For example, when it comes to nuclear warheads or conventional weapons, delivery systems are very important. In 2018, Russia, in spite of a modest defence budget compared with that of the US, unveiled weapon systems that include already operationally deployed hypersonic missiles and glide systems that fly at speeds many times the speed of sound (Mach 1) against which the entire collective West has no countermeasures. These missile systems (delivery systems) include the Kinzhal at Mach 12, Iskander at Mach 7, Zircon at Mach 8 and Oreshnik at Mach 10. There are other weapon systems that cannot be properly categorised under any of the previous arms control instruments, such as the nuclear-propelled Burevestnik missile system with limitless range, making it difficult to classify for future purposes of negotiating an arms control framework towards global stability.

Meanwhile, the US hypersonic weapon systems such as the army’s long-range hypersonic weapon, also called “Dark Eagle”, the air force’s hypersonic attack cruise missile, and the navy’s conventional prompt strike are still under the “development and testing” phase, thus condemning the US to play “catch-up” to Russia and China in this field, as summed up by Isaac Seitz in his National Security Journal article published on May 29 2025.

The implications of a world without nuclear guardrails to ensure strategic stability are dire not only for non-proliferation, regional and global stability but also for the fate of mankind. Lack of mutual trust among nuclear powers, compounded by geopolitical competition and rivalry, might lead to unforeseen escalations or miscalculations with unfathomable consequences.

There is a groundswell of concern across all seven continents regarding the dangers presented by the complete collapse of the global strategic nuclear arms control framework. The UN provides a credible platform where consensus could be established among countries that share the same perspective. Acknowledging the strength of public opinion in influencing issues of international concern, I would also advocate for the revival of a robust peace and anti-war movement to put pressure on the ruling elites to prioritise efforts aimed at creating a conducive environment for the resumption of talks for the all-inclusive and comprehensive nuclear arms control framework sooner rather than later. This is all about the future of life on earth as we know it.

Brig-Gen (ret) Vuyisile JS Radebe is a master’s graduate in military science studies and the founder and executive director of Africa Global Security Institute.