AI rabbit hole -- Strategic arms treaties summary

Strategic arms treaties have shaped global security since the 1960s, evolving from basic limits on missile numbers to deep reductions in nuclear warheads. 

Key Strategic Arms Treaties

• SALT I (1972): The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks resulted in the first major agreements between the U.S. and the USSR. It included the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which restricted defensive systems to ensure Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), and an Interim Agreement that froze the number of strategic missile launchers.
• SALT II (1979): Intended to replace SALT I with more comprehensive limits on delivery vehicles and warheads. Although signed by Presidents Jimmy Carter and Leonid Brezhnev, the U.S. Senate never ratified it due to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Both nations voluntarily adhered to its limits until 1986.
• INF Treaty (1987): The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was the first to eliminate an entire class of nuclear weapons—ground-launched missiles with ranges of 500–5,500 km. The U.S. formally withdrew in 2019, citing Russian violations.
• START I (1991): The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty marked the first actual reduction in the number of strategic nuclear weapons rather than just capping them. It required the U.S. and USSR to reduce their arsenals to 6,000 warheads each and expired in 2009.
• START II (1993): Aimed to further reduce warheads to 3,000–3,500 and ban multiple-warhead (MIRV) land-based missiles. It never entered into force because Russia withdrew in 2002 after the U.S. left the ABM Treaty.
• SORT (2002): The Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (Moscow Treaty) was a less formal agreement to reduce "operationally deployed" warheads to 1,700–2,200. It lacked the rigorous verification measures of its predecessors.
• New START (2010): The most recent major treaty, limiting each side to 1,550 deployed warheads and 700 delivery systems. It was extended in 2021 and is currently set to expire on February 5, 2026. 

Current Status

As of early 2026, the strategic arms control framework is in a state of high uncertainty. Russia suspended its participation in New START in 2023, though it pledged to continue following the numerical limits. The expiration of New START in February 2026 marks the first time in over 50 years that the world's two largest nuclear powers are not under a binding strategic arms agreement.

The 

United States

 formally withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty on August 2, 2019. The decision was primarily driven by long-standing allegations of Russian non-compliance and the strategic challenge posed by China’s unconstrained missile arsenal. 

1. Russian Violations (The 9M729 Missile)

The central reason cited by the U.S. and its NATO allies was Russia's development, testing, and deployment of the 9M729 (NATO designation: SSC-8) ground-launched cruise missile. 

• The Breach: The U.S. first declared Russia in violation in 2014, asserting that the 9M729 had a range between 500 and 5,500 km, which was explicitly banned by the treaty.
• Failed Diplomacy: Following over 30 formal engagements and six years of diplomacy, the Trump administration concluded that Russia had no intention of returning to compliance.
• The "Material Breach": On December 4, 2018, the U.S. declared Russia in "material breach" and gave a 60-day ultimatum for the verifiable destruction of the missile systems. When Russia refused, the U.S. suspended its obligations in February 2019, triggering the six-month withdrawal period. 

2. The "China Factor"

While the treaty was a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Russia, U.S. officials argued it created a strategic disadvantage in the Indo-Pacific. 

• Unilateral Constraint: China, not being a signatory, was free to develop intermediate-range missiles. Experts estimated that 95% of China’s missile arsenal would have violated the treaty if Beijing were a party to it.
• Regional Competition: The U.S. wanted the freedom to deploy ground-launched conventional missiles in Asia to counter Chinese military buildup, particularly in the South China Sea. 

3. Russian Counter-Accusations

Russia denied any violation and accused the U.S. of breaking the treaty first through: 

• Aegis Ashore: Russia claimed the Mk-41 vertical launch systems deployed in Romania and Poland for missile defense could be surreptitiously loaded with offensive Tomahawk cruise missiles.
• Target Missiles & Drones: Russia argued that U.S. target missiles used for defense testing and armed drones like the MQ-9 Reaper functioned as prohibited ground-launched missiles. 

The U.S. and NATO dismissed these claims as "spurious" attempts to distract from Russia's own non-compliance. After the U.S. withdrawal, Russia followed suit, effectively ending the 1987 landmark agreement.

The collapse of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty—combined with the recent expiration of New START in February 2026—has fundamentally altered the global security landscape by removing the final legally binding constraints on the world's two largest nuclear powers. 

The primary implications include:

1. Elimination of Strategic "Guardrails"

• Loss of Predictability: The treaty’s end, alongside the lapse of New START, means there are no longer mutual inspections or data exchanges. Nations must now rely on "worst-case assessments" and satellite intelligence for strategic planning.
• Increased Risk of Miscalculation: Intermediate-range missiles have extremely short flight times (often under 10 minutes), reducing decision-making windows during a crisis and raising the risk of accidental nuclear escalation. 

2. Shift Toward a Qualitative Arms Race 

• New Missile Deployments: Both the U.S. and Russia have moved to develop and deploy previously prohibited systems. Russia has begun serial production of the Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile, with planned deployments in Belarus by 2026.
• Technological Competition: Instead of a simple numerical buildup, the focus has shifted to advanced technologies, including hypersonic delivery systems, counter-space weapons, and AI-enabled command-and-control systems. 

3. Regional Security Impacts

• Europe: The continent faces a return to "hair-trigger instability" last seen in the 1980s. NATO is exploring a "defensive package" of conventional and intelligence measures to counter new Russian deployments.
• Indo-Pacific: Freed from INF constraints, the U.S. can now deploy ground-launched conventional missiles to counter China’s massive unconstrained arsenal.
• Nuclear Proliferation: The collapse of these treaties weakens the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Allies in regions like Poland, Japan, and South Korea may face domestic pressure to develop their own nuclear deterrents if U.S. security guarantees appear less certain. 

4. Move Toward Multilateralism 

Future arms control efforts are now expected to be far more complex, as the U.S. insists that any new framework must be multilateral to include China, whose nuclear expansion is significantly reshaping the strategic environment.