Land-based ICBMs are the hair-trigger of the doomsday machine — kept on launch-on-warning status that leaves minutes, not hours, for a human decision. Ending that posture and phasing out ICBMs would sharply cut the risk of an accidental launch.

The U.S., Russia, and China are all significantly modernizing their nuclear arsenals – increasing the accuracy, precision, and diversity of their weapons.

Nuclear arms control treaties between the U.S. and Russia are unraveling, with both sides pulling out of Cold War-era agreements. This removes constraints and opens the door to new nuclear weapons development.

India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel are increasing their nuclear stockpiles and missile capabilities. This adds instability and potential nuclear flashpoints.

Investments in new nuclear weapons by major powers are steering away from a vision of disarmament and posing challenges to non-proliferation efforts.

Advances in hypersonic glide vehicles, missile defense penetration aids, nuclear-armed drones, AI, and other technologies are sparking a new arms race.

ABM systems offer little defense but make a first strike more feasible. The 1972 treaty was abrogated by the US in 2002.

From the first advanced radar system built in the ’50s (SAGE), to today’s ABM systems, it is a story of fraud, lies, secrecy, and massive budgets for systems that were never effective as a defense – but did threaten a first strike.

Recognizing how advanced ABM systems would encourage a destabilizing arms race, in 1972 President Nixon and Chairman Brezhnev agreed to the first ABM treaty.

In 2002, President Bush unilaterally abrogated the treaty, setting up a new arms race. It was a great boon to arms manufacturers.

Large numbers of smaller short range nuclear weapons increases the risks that a conventional conflict could escalate into nuclear war.

The U.S. threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons against China during the Taiwan crisis of 1958. Ellsberg reveals a still-classified report that states that President Eisenhower authorized the Joint Chiefs to use the weapon if they thought it necessary to “defend” American prestige and credibility in Asia.

Nixon considered using a tactical weapon against Vietnam. This is why Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers.

Russia has a large arsenal of around 2,000 tactical nuclear warheads and has threatened to use them since the invasion of Ukraine.

The U.S. is upgrading the B61, its main tactical nuclear bomb, and developing submarine-based and sea-launched systems that will increase its tactical arsenal.

China, until recently, maintained only strategic nuclear forces. But there are indications China is now exploring tactical nuclear options as its rivalry with the U.S. intensifies.

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was signed by Clinton in 1996, but the U.S. Senate has still not ratified it. In 2023, the Russian Duma withdrew its ratification.

Some Russian security officials argue testing is needed to ensure the reliability and safety of an aging arsenal and confirm new warhead designs as older ones are retired. Pressure is mounting in favor of a new round of tests.

In the U.S., some members of Congress have called for resumed testing, including Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Representative Mike Rogers (R-Alabama), and former Senator Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia). Now, Trump has called for renewed testing.

Trump withdrew the U.S. from international agreements such as the INF Treaty and Open Skies, raising concerns about the erosion of arms control norms governing testing.

In an era of no arms control, Russian and U.S. strategic nuclear forces could double.

The story of the New START treaty is one of intrigue and the power of the military-industrial complex.

President Obama rode into office in 2009, promising to work toward a nuclear-free world. Within 16 months of his inauguration, the United States and Russia negotiated New START, meant to build trust and cut the risk of nuclear war. It limited each side to what the treaty counts as 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads.

Obama then supported a massive modernization of the American nuclear arsenal. The United States under Obama transformed its main hydrogen gravity bomb into a guided smart weapon, made its submarine-launched nuclear missiles five times more accurate, and gave its land-based long-range missiles so many added features that the Air Force in 2012 described them as “basically new.” Military contractors are building fleets of new heavy bombers, missiles, and submarines to deliver these more lethal weapons.

The U.S. and Russia will each spend more than a trillion dollars modernizing their nuclear arsenals. If there is no New START, there is no limit to how many warheads can be produced.

Even a nuclear war between India and Pakistan would have devastating environmental and agricultural disruptions that could put up to a billion people at risk globally.

A full-scale nuclear war between major nuclear powers could end most life on Earth.

Congress should hold hearings on the danger of nuclear winter so people understand that accidental atomic war risks a total apocalypse.

Concentrating power in one person’s hands poses unacceptable risks – Presidential judgment could be impaired by information gaps in a crisis, emotions, mental instability, or poor advice. Checks and balances could reduce risks.

In 1974, President Nixon’s aides stated he was drinking heavily at times and had worrying, angry outbursts. Henry Kissinger feared he might exercise his sole nuclear launch powers.

There is evidence President Reagan suffered from early dementia. In 1983, there was an extensive debate after he jokingly said during a mic check that he had “signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever” and was “beginning bombing in five minutes.” This led to one of the most severe miscalculations when Soviet radar picked up what seemed like incoming missiles. Only one Soviet officer prevented that false alert turning into an all-out nuclear war.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, what if Kennedy had not stood up to the Joint Chiefs, who wanted to launch “Operation Northwood,” invade Cuba and launch a first nuclear strike against the Soviet Union? Everything hinged on one man.

It’s been reported that Gen. Mark Milley called his Chinese counterpart Gen. Li Zuocheng twice to reassure him the U.S. was not planning an attack on China amid tensions in the final days of the Trump presidency.

There is a risk of catastrophic unintended escalation in a crisis due to AI systems reacting wrongly or faster than humans can comprehend. Automated responses could dramatically reduce decision-making time in the face of ambiguous warnings.

The potential for adversarial hacking, spoofing of sensor data, or other manipulation of AI to trigger false alarms or dangerous responses by nuclear command and control networks. Cyber risks must be minimized.