nuclear-news

Without START, everything could end

With a major nuclear exchange there would be many detonations, killing billions of people. As the fallout spreads, billions more would sicken and die a slower death from radiation poisoning. The soot and smoke would block out sunlight, causing a “nuclear winter”, a fall in temperature that would destroy most food-producing agriculture. The electromagnetic field on which the internet and much of modern technology depends would be disrupted

All of these effects would multiply each other in unforeseeable ways. Civilizations would collapse. And radiation hangs around for millions of years. It disrupts DNA, so the long-term biological effects, assuming there are still life forms around, would be devastating.

  February 1, 2026 by beyondnuclearinternational

Ignoring this last nuclear treaty comes at great peril, writes Carol Wolman

A key nuclear treaty, the START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) expires on Feb 4th 2026. This bilateral treaty between the US and Russia caps the number of nuclear weapons each side may legally possess. It also mandates bilateral inspections to ensure the treaty is respected on both sides.

Originally signed in 1991 by then Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev and US President H. W. Bush, it successfully reduced the nuclear weapons stockpiles on each side by 80%. This essentially put an end to the nuclear arms race between the US and the Soviet Union, which broke up later that year.

In 2010, a revised New START treaty was negotiated by US President Clinton and Russian President Medvedev. This further reduced stockpiles to about 2000 nuclear warheads apiece. Ratified by both sides in 2011, it had a ten-year term and was renewed for another 5 years in 2021 under President Biden.

Russia’s President Putin has offered to extend the treaty for another year, if the US reciprocates. President Trump said on January 8, 2026: “If it expires, it expires”. Expiration of New START would remove all constraints on expansion of nuclear stockpiles and delivery systems, as well as abolishing bilateral inspections

By way of background:  the first nuclear weapons were used on August 6th and 9th 1945, when the US dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Over the next 20 years, Russia, England, France and China also developed these weapons of mass destruction.

The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 frightened everyone. Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev placed nuclear armed missiles on the island of Cuba, 90 miles from Florida, and President Kennedy threatened various sorts of retaliation, including nuclear. For 13 days, we didn’t know if we would wake up the next morning.

This alarm set in motion a series of treaties designed to prevent nuclear war. A hotline was installed between the White House and the Kremlin. Atmospheric nuclear testing was banned in 1963 through the Partial Test Ban Treaty. Some underground tests were banned two years later, but it was not until 1996 when all nuclear explosions, including underground, were finally banned through the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), although it has never come into force. However, Russia officially withdrew its ratification of the CTBT in November 2023.

The key nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which entered into force in 1970, was designed to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to countries that did not have them, although four more countries have since joined the “club” — India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel, none of which are signatures to the treaty (North Korea originally joined the treaty but withdrew once it developed nuclear weapons).

As of 2026, Russia, China and the US are all increasing their nuclear budgets exponentially. Global tensions are rising because of many factors: global warming, natural disasters, increases in the demand for energy, and scarcity of essential resources like water and rare minerals, to name a few.  The risk of all-out nuclear war goes up dramatically without New START.

An all-out nuclear war might well be suicidal for humanity; indeed, for most life forms.  Scientists tell us that a number of factors would ensure widespread lethality.

With a major nuclear exchange there would be many detonations, killing billions of people. As the fallout spreads, billions more would sicken and die a slower death from radiation poisoning. The soot and smoke would block out sunlight, causing a “nuclear winter”, a fall in temperature that would destroy most food-producing agriculture. The electromagnetic field on which the internet and much of modern technology depends would be disrupted.

All of these effects would multiply each other in unforeseeable ways. Civilizations would collapse. And radiation hangs around for millions of years. It disrupts DNA, so the long-term biological effects, assuming there are still life forms around, would be devastating.

We have lived with nuclear weapons for 80 years, since the A-bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Horrendous as those were, they were small compared to the hydrogen bombs, 5-40 times more powerful, which are now routine in nuclear stockpiles……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

A new treaty, the UN Treaty on the Prohibition Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), became international law five years ago. Seventy-four nations have ratified it. Most of them are in the Southern Hemisphere; none of them have nuclear weapons.

There is a resolution in the US House of Representatives, HR 77, which supports the tenets of the TPNW. It currently has 44 cosponsors. Is your Representative one of them?

It will take a concerted effort to get rid of nuclear weapons. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons has many tools for individuals and groups to use. A good start would be to write to periodicals and demand that they run articles about the looming demise of the New START treaty.

Abolishing nuclear weapons begins with paying attention. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2026/02/01/without-start-everything-could-end/

February 5, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

The only remaining US-Russia nuclear treaty expires this week. Could a new arms race soon accelerate?

Tilman Ruff, Honorary Principal Fellow, School of Population and Global Health, The University of MelbourneFebruary 2, 2026, https://theconversation.com/the-only-remaining-us-russia-nuclear-treaty-expires-this-week-could-a-new-arms-race-soon-accelerate-269508?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20February%202%202026%20-%203661637412&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20February%202%202026%20-%203661637412+CID_d509427262fbc0b5c74ed2503dd5f4e9&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=The%20only%20remaining%20US-Russia%20nuclear%20treaty%20expires%20this%20week%20Could%20a%20new%20arms%20race%20soon%20accelerate

The New START treaty, the last remaining agreement constraining Russian and US nuclear weapons, is due to lapse on February 4.

There are no negotiations to extend the terms of the treaty, either. As US President Donald Trump said dismissively in a recent interview, “if it expires, it expires”.

The importance of the New START treaty is hard to overstate. As other nuclear treaties have been abrogated in recent years, this was the only deal left with notification, inspection, verification and treaty compliance mechanisms between Russia and the US. Between them, they possess 87% of the world’s nuclear weapons.

The demise of the treaty will bring a definitive and alarming end to nuclear restraint between the two powers. It may very well accelerate the global nuclear arms race, too.

What is New START?

The New START or Prague Treaty was signed by then-US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart, Dimitri Medvedev, in Prague on April 8, 2010. It entered into force the following year.

It superseded a 2002 treaty that 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 on 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).

These reductions were achieved by February 5, 2018.

The treaty included mechanisms for compliance and verification, which have worked effectively. It provided for twice-yearly exchanges of data and ongoing mutual notification about the movement of strategic nuclear forces, which in practice occurred on a nearly daily basis.

Importantly, the treaty also mandated short-notice, on-site inspections of missiles, warheads and launchers covered by the treaty, providing valuable and stabilising insights into the other’s nuclear deployments.

Lastly, the treaty established a bilateral consultative commission and clear procedures to resolve questions or disputes.

Limitations of the deal

The treaty was criticised at the time for its modest reductions and the limited types of nuclear weapons it covered.

But the most enduring downside was the political price Obama paid to achieve ratification by the US Senate.

To secure sufficient Republican support, he agreed to a long-term program of renewal and modernisation of the entire US nuclear arsenal – in addition to the facilities and programs that produce and maintain nuclear weapons. The overall pricetag was estimated to reach well over US$2 trillion.

This has arguably done more harm by entrenching the United States’ possession of nuclear weapons and thwarting prospects for disarmament.

As the New START treaty was about to expire in 2021, Russia offered to extend it for another five years, as allowed under the terms. US President Donald Trump, however, refused to reciprocate.

After winning the 2020 US presidential election, Joe Biden did agree to extend the treaty on February 3, 2021, just two days before it would have expired. The treaty does not provide for any further extensions.

In February 2023, Russia suspended its implementation of key aspects of the treaty, including stockpile data exchange and on-site inspections. It did not formally withdraw, however, and committed to continue to abide by the treaty’s numerical limits on warheads, missiles and launchers.

What could happen next

With the imminent expiry of the treaty this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced in September 2025 that he was prepared to continue observing the numerical limits for one more year if the US acted similarly.

Besides an off-the-cuff comment by Trump – “it sounds like a good idea to me” – the US did not formally respond to the Russian offer.

Trump has further complicated matters by insisting that negotiations on any future nuclear arms control agreements include China. However, China has consistently refused this. There is also no precedent for such trilateral nuclear control or disarmament negotiations, which would no doubt be long and complex. Though growing, China’s arsenal is still less than 12% the size of the US arsenal and less than 11% the size of Russia’s.

Tagreement to continue to observe its limits until a successor treaty is negotiated.

This means Russia and the US could increase their deployed warheads by 60% and 110%, respectively, within a matter of months. This is because both have the capacity to load a larger number of warheads on their missiles and bombers than they currently do. Both countries also have large numbers of warheads in reserve or slated for dismantlement, but still intact.

If they took these steps, both countries could effectively double their deployed strategic nuclear arsenals.

The end of the treaty’s verification, data exchanges, and compliance and notification processes would also lead to increased uncertainty and distrust. This, in turn, could lead to a further build-up of both countries’ already gargantuan military capabilities

February 4, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Sir Keir Starmer backs a USA strike on Iran

Sir Keir Starmer has signalled British support for a US strike on Iran,
saying he backs President Trump’s goal of preventing Tehran from obtaining
nuclear weapons. Trump warned Iran this week that time was “running
out” to come to the negotiating table over its nuclear weapons programme
as the US continued to build up forces in the region. The prime minister
said from China that he supported Trump’s move to “deal” with the
Iranian regime over its nuclear programme and the recent crackdown on
pro-democracy protesters.

Times 31st Jan 2026, https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/iran-nuclear-weapons-us-strikes-d7lmbcc37

February 3, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment