Nuclear weapons are often discussed in abstractions, as if they were just another line item in a defense budget or a bargaining chip in diplomacy. The brutal truth is that they are engineered instruments of mass extinction, maintained in hair-trigger configurations that could erase much of human civilization in less than an afternoon. The madness is not only that these arsenals exist, but that the world is quietly dismantling the few guardrails that once kept them in check.
What almost no one wants to confront is how close this system is to failure, and how ordinary the path to catastrophe would look until the final minutes. The end of key treaties, the rise of new technologies, and the normalization of first-strike planning have combined to make nuclear war both more thinkable and more likely, even as public attention drifts elsewhere.
The last guardrail just snapped
For decades, the New START Treaty was the final, fragile ceiling on the strategic arsenals of the United States and Russia, capping deployed warheads and launchers and providing inspections that kept both sides honest. That framework, detailed in the original New START agreement, limited how many long range nuclear weapons could be fielded and created a predictable environment for two rivals that still hold the bulk of the world’s nuclear firepower. Its expiration removes not just numbers on a spreadsheet, but a shared understanding that there were lines neither side would cross.
Once the New START limits disappear, analysts warn that the United States and Russia will have no binding constraints on their strategic forces, and that deployed nuclear forces could effectively double in short order. A separate assessment on the impending expiration of US and Russia limits warns that this could trigger a rapid and destabilizing nuclear arms race, as each side scrambles to outbuild the other in warheads, delivery systems, and exotic new capabilities. The result is not stability through strength, but a volatile contest in which miscalculation becomes more likely and verification more difficult.
From arms control to arms race
The unraveling of New START does not happen in a vacuum, it comes after a long erosion of the arms control architecture that began in the late Cold War. Earlier generations of leaders in Washington and Russia negotiated a web of agreements that slashed arsenals and banned entire classes of weapons, work that is now being undone as treaty after treaty lapses or is abandoned. One recent analysis notes that But now, that work is being unraveled, with the last remaining U.S. and Russia nuclear arms reduction treaty expired and the basic lesson that arms control makes everyone safer being quietly discarded.
Strategists now speak openly about a new era in which nuclear arsenals among the great powers are expected to continue expanding, rather than shrinking. One assessment of the dawn of 2026 warns that nuclear arsenals among the world’s major powers are likely to grow, at the same time that the expiration of New START removes the last formal brake on U.S. and Russia deployments. Instead of a managed competition, the world is drifting back toward a two sided arms race that earlier generations had painfully learned to step away from.
A world 85 seconds from catastrophe
The scale of the danger is not just theoretical, it is captured in the symbolic setting of The Doomsday Clock, which is maintained by a group of scientists and security experts to reflect how close humanity is to self inflicted catastrophe. In its latest assessment, The Doomsday Clock is set at 85 seconds to midnight, a judgment reached by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Science and Security Board, known as the SASB, in consultation with a board of sponsors that includes multiple Nobel laureates. Their statement is blunt, they argue that the combination of nuclear risks, climate disruption, and disruptive technologies has made all of humanity more vulnerable.
That warning is echoed at the highest diplomatic levels. The Secretary General António Guterres has described the expiry of the final US and Russia nuclear arms treaty as a grave moment, warning that the world is entering a period of unprecedented mistrust between nuclear powers. When the symbolic clock and the top diplomat at the United Nations converge on the same message, that the risk of nuclear use is rising, it underlines how far reality has drifted from the complacent assumption that these weapons are safely locked away.
The logic of first strike and the 72 minute apocalypse
Behind the sterile language of deterrence lies a more disturbing logic, the belief that a nuclear war can be fought and even won if one side strikes first with enough precision. Anti nuclear campaigners like Helen Caldicott have long warned that planners in Washington and Russian circles are building very accurate missiles designed to knock out the other side’s forces before they can respond, a concept she describes as a first strike, a surprise strike that aims to disarm the opponent. In her broader speech on nuclear madness, she argues that this pursuit of perfect accuracy and speed does not make the world safer, it makes the temptation to use these weapons in a crisis more acute.
Modern simulations of nuclear conflict drive home how quickly such a theory would turn into planetary catastrophe. One widely viewed explainer walks through a scenario in which, no matter how nuclear war begins, it ends in 72 m and 5 billion people would be dead, a sequence laid out in chilling detail in a minute by minute video. Another visual analysis, filmed in Jul in Washington DC, shows what a single detonation over the U.S. capital would do to the city’s people and infrastructure, using real blast and radiation models to map the devastation in Washington DC. These are not fringe fantasies, they are grounded in the known effects of nuclear weapons and the current size of deployed arsenals.
New technologies, old illusions
As if the existing arsenals were not enough, a new generation of weapons and enabling technologies is accelerating the competition. Analysts warn that New technology, new risks are emerging as hypersonic weapons, autonomous systems and artificial intelligence are woven into nuclear command and control, raising fears of faster escalation and less human oversight. Hypersonic delivery systems, in particular, compress decision times and make it harder to distinguish a conventional strike from a nuclear one, while autonomous systems and AI introduce the possibility of software errors or spoofed data feeding into launch decisions.
At the same time, the political narrative is sliding back toward the idea that more weapons equal more security. A detailed review of the current landscape notes that nuclear weapons without limits are becoming a real prospect as treaty caps vanish and modernization programs ramp up. Another historical reflection points out that, if you fast forward to the present, almost all of the nuclear treaties hashed out between the U.S. and Fast Russia have now expired, leaving the world closer to a two sided arms race than at any time since the 1980s. The illusion is that these new tools and larger stockpiles can be managed indefinitely, even as the safeguards that once constrained them fall away.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
