Nuclear Arms Race Picking Up

Direct US military action has made a negotiated end to Iran’s nuclear program more difficult to achieve, on the contrary, could lead the country to decide to pursue nuclear weapons quickly.

It is 80 years since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on 6 August 1945. This atrocity and the subsequent H-bomb destruction of Nagasaki showed all nations that nuclear weapons were the worst creation in the history of humankind. But once out of the box, the monstrous capability could not be contained. It started an arms race, especially during the Cold War, that continues until today. The fact is that more nations are getting access to nuclear bombs and the number of warheads is growing again, after a controlled decrease thanks to bilateral and international control measures.

The military doctrine of mutual controlled deterrence is being adopted by more countries, in a sort of globalization of nuclear capabilities. North Korea is the unholy example of how an otherwise failing state can gain some notoriety by demonstrating illegal test explosions for a stunned international audience. Unfortunately, this model is what other rogue states are now aspiring to reproduce.

Regrettably, this new acceleration of nuclear proliferation cannot be contained by international treaties and UN organizations because they struggle for respect and the international order is falling apart, badly challenged as it is, by USA’s and other’s reckless foreign policy changes. Ukraine was the only really good example of how international regulations and agreements works, Ukraine giving up all of its nuclear capabilities in return for guarantees respect of its sovereignty. Until Russia tore it all up. The Budapest Memorandum of 1994 and the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons were pushed aside. Given this example, it is no easy task to convince Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions, even it the peaceful way would be more honorable for all.

Peace Memorial Park in Hiroshima, Japan. Photo by Skaterlunatic on Unsplash

Nuclear risks grow as new arms race looms—new SIPRI Yearbook out now

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) released its new yearbook last week. Key findings of the SIPRI Yearbook 2025 are that a dangerous new nuclear arms race is emerging at a time when arms control regimes are severely weakened.

World nuclear forces, January 2025

The military stockpile of usable nuclear weapons is growing, to 9.614 in 2025 up from 9.585 the year before, according to the SIPRI estimates. But the arsenals are undergoing renewal and refurbishment, so the force of the collection is growing more than the numbers seem to indicate. Another factor is the methods of launching bombs on eventual targets, which is undergoing much development, with cruise missiles and AI driven targeting and other means.

SIPRI writes:

Arms control in crisis amid new arms race

In his introduction to SIPRI Yearbook 2025, SIPRI Director Dan Smith warns about the challenges facing nuclear arms control and the prospects of a new nuclear arms race.

Smith observes that ‘bilateral nuclear arms control between Russia and the USA entered crisis some years ago and is now almost over’. While New START—the last remaining nuclear arms control treaty limiting Russian and US strategic nuclear forces—remains in force until early 2026, there are no signs of negotiations to renew or replace it, or that either side wants to do so. US President Donald J. Trump insisted during his first term and has now repeated that any future deal should also include limits on China’s nuclear arsenal—something that would add a new layer of complexity to already difficult negotiations.

Smith also issues a stark warning about the risks of a new nuclear arms race: ‘The signs are that a new arms race is gearing up that carries much more risk and uncertainty than the last one.’ The rapid development and application of an array of technologies—for example in the fields of artificial intelligence (AI), cyber capabilities, space assets, missile defence and quantum—are radically redefining nuclear capabilities, deterrence and defence, and thus creating potential sources of instability. Advances in missile defence and the oceanic deployment of quantum technology could ultimately have an impact on the vulnerability of key elements of states’ nuclear arsenals.

Furthermore, as AI and other technologies speed up decision making in crises, there is a higher risk of a nuclear conflict breaking out as a result of miscommunication, misunderstanding or technical accident.

Smith argues that, with all these new technologies and variables in play, ‘the idea of who is ahead in the arms race will be even more elusive and intangible than it was last time round. In this context, the old largely numerical formulas of arms control will no longer suffice.’

Revitalized national debates in East Asia, Europe and the Middle East about nuclear status and strategy suggest there is some potential for more states to develop their own nuclear weapons.

In addition, there has been renewed attention on nuclear-sharing arrangements. In 2024 both Belarus and Russia repeated their claims that Russia has deployed nuclear weapons on Belarusian territory, while several European NATO members signalled their willingness to host US nuclear weapons on their soil, and France’s President Emmanuel Macron repeated statements that France’s nuclear deterrent should have a ‘European dimension’.

Iran

Since the theocratic government took over Iran, the international community has struggled to find a way to contain its expansionist ambitions. Against Iraq and then via proxies against many other nations and groups in the Middle East. USA and Israel remain the big Satans to be obliterated according to Iranian government rhetoric. But so far, sanctions has kept the regime at bay and the nuclear arms activities were restricted and surveilled by internationally recognized authorities. Until Trump came along and slashed the deal, in 2018.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or the Iran nuclear deal limits the Iranian nuclear program in return for sanctions relief and other provisions. The agreement was finalized in Vienna on 14 July 2015, between Iran and the UN Security Council members China, France, Russia, UK, US plus Germany/EU, also called E3/EU+3. It was under Trump-1 that US withdrew from the agreement and nothing has been achieved since then, other than Iran has re-started enrichment of the nuclear fuel.

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists notes that on June 17, three days after the first Israeli aerial strikes on Iran, the Iranian parliament introduced a bill that—if passed—could see Iran withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT. It is not the first time that Iran threatens to withdraw, but it has so far been counter-productive and unless Iran really wants to be cemented in a position as a pariah state, at least a honest degree of playing along with international agreements is required.

Time will show if bombing of nuclear facilities like those of Iran will help counter the new wave of nuclear proliferation. History does not hold any examples of nations capable of going nuclear being prevented from it by military attack. On the contrary, Iran will most likely be emboldened and further convinced that nuclear is the solution, not the problem, because of examples such as Ukraine and the new international order based on strongman spheres of interest. Iran and similar nations will conclude that sovereignty springs from military power, not international treaties.

Graph from Hiroshima Report