World Powers Brace for New Nuclear Reality in Shifting Order

The Cold War nuclear stalemate created a grim but stable global order. No one doubted nuclear weapons’ devastating effects. The world order is transforming now, and it threatens to grow the nuclear-arms club. Wars in Ukraine and Iran, plus growing doubts about U.S. reliability, make countries worldwide think about nuclear weapons as survival keys.

The Soviet Union’s collapse led the United States to focus on one priority. They wanted Ukraine to move its big nuclear arsenal to Russia. This effort succeeded but many now see it as a strategic mistake that left Ukraine defenseless against Russian invasion. North Korea played it smart. They took advantage of America’s unwillingness to use military force and built nuclear weapons that now threaten global security. The power balance has changed dramatically. The U.S.-Russia nuclear equation now includes China as an emerging nuclear superpower. Russia’s war in Ukraine showed their readiness to make nuclear threats. Most arms control agreements between the United States and Russia have fallen apart or face uncertain times ahead. States like Israel, North Korea, India, and Pakistan are upgrading their nuclear forces. Iran keeps advancing its nuclear capabilities. These developments raise the risk of more countries getting nuclear weapons and destabilizing international security.

Russia Invades Ukraine and Revives Nuclear Threats

_{Image Source: Reuters}

The war in Ukraine has lived under a nuclear cloud since Russia launched its full invasion in February 2022. This event changed global nuclear politics forever. Vladimir Putin’s readiness to make nuclear threats has pushed nuclear risk to levels we haven’t seen since the Cold War’s darkest moments.

Ukraine’s disarmament and the Budapest Memorandum

Ukraine held the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal when it gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. The country’s military power included 1,900 strategic warheads, 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles, and 44 strategic bombers. This massive arsenal gave the young nation a chance for security but also brought complex responsibilities.

The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances came after years of talks, and Ukraine signed it on December 5, 1994. The United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom promised to protect Ukraine’s security. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons and joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear weapon state. The security promises included:

• Respecting Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty
• Refraining from the threat or use of force against Ukraine
• Respecting Ukraine’s existing borders
• Providing assistance if Ukraine became victim of aggression

Ukraine returned all its nuclear warheads to Russia by 1996. The last strategic nuclear delivery vehicle disappeared in 2001. Everyone celebrated this disarmament as a diplomatic win back then. Russia broke these promises when it took Crimea in 2014 and launched its full invasion in 2022.

Ukrainian views on nuclear disarmament have changed drastically since the invasion. A recent poll shows that 73% of Ukrainians want their country to “restore” its nuclear weapons. About 58% would support having nuclear weapons even if it meant losing Western allies. Many Ukrainians think Russia would not have attacked if their country had kept its nuclear deterrent.

Putin’s nuclear rhetoric and strategic signaling

Putin made his first hidden nuclear threat when Russian troops entered Ukraine on February 24, 2022. He said: “No matter who tries to stand in our way or all the more so create threats for our country and our people, they must know that Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history”.

Putin raised tensions further three days later. He put Russia’s nuclear forces on “high combat alert” and blamed “illegitimate sanctions” and “aggressive statements” from NATO officials. Russia has sent many nuclear signals throughout the conflict:

The signals included direct threats about crossing “red lines” if Western countries gave Ukraine longer-range missiles. Russia often referred to its nuclear doctrine. The country conducted nuclear exercises, tests, and shared modernization updates. They spread false information about Ukraine planning to use dirty bombs.

Putin approved changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine in November 2024. Experts believe these changes made it easier to use nuclear weapons. Russia could now launch nuclear weapons if a non-nuclear state backed by a nuclear power attacked its territory.

Russia moved tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus in March 2023. This marked the first time Russia placed nuclear weapons outside its borders since the Soviet Union fell.

Russia’s nuclear threats haven’t worked as planned. Western countries still send increasingly advanced weapons to Ukraine, though the threats may have stopped direct NATO military action. Ukraine now uses Leopard and Abrams tanks, and F-16 fighters will arrive soon.

The world has pushed back against Russia’s nuclear talk. China and India have said no to nuclear weapons in this conflict, without doubt worried about what it all means. NATO and the United States keep calling Russia’s nuclear threats “irresponsible”.

Russia seems to use nuclear threats to stop Western help for Ukraine. Yet Russia hasn’t followed through when many of its “red lines” were crossed, which might weaken future threats. This points to careful planning rather than real plans to use nuclear weapons. Still, mistakes or desperation could lead to dangerous escalation in this ever-changing world order.

North Korea Expands Arsenal Despite Global Sanctions

_{Image Source: Reuters}

North Korea continues to defy international pressure and has established itself as a de facto nuclear weapons state. The regime speeds up its missile testing and nuclear development at an unprecedented rate. Kim Jong Un’s leadership has systematically grown the country’s arsenal despite facing some of the toughest multilateral sanctions worldwide.

ICBM development and regional implications

North Korea has carried out weapons tests on more than 37 separate occasions over the last several years. These include multiple intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launches that show its growing ability to strike the U.S. mainland. The regime has made huge technological progress, especially when you have its powerful Hwasong-18 missile—a solid-fuel ICBM first tested in 2023. This missile could potentially travel up to 15,000 km on a non-lofted path.

The change to solid-fuel technology marks a crucial step forward. These missiles offer several advantages over their liquid-fueled counterparts:

• They’re safer to operate and transport
• They need minimal prep time for deployment
• They survive longer due to reduced detection time
• Enemies find them harder to target before launch

North Korea’s missile arsenal has multiple ICBM variants with unique tactical benefits. The Hwasong-17, known as the “Monster Missile,” can carry larger payloads including multi-warhead rockets. The Hwasong-15 provides better mobility. Current intelligence suggests North Korea has about 40-50 nuclear warheads and enough fissile material to create 40 more.

These advances have changed regional security dynamics completely. Japanese authorities now run civilian evacuation drills after missile tests toward the Sea of Japan. South Korea has updated its five-year defense strategy to counter North Korean nuclear threats. Both countries have strengthened their military ties with the U.S. through joint efforts to boost deterrence.

North Korea’s nuclear push stems in part from the Ukraine conflict. Russia’s invasion seems to have reinforced Pyongyang’s belief that nuclear weapons ensure regime security. Yes, it is telling that Kim Jong Un calls nuclear weapons his country’s “strategic and predominant goal in building our ideal powerful socialist state”.

U.S. deterrence credibility in East Asia

The U.S. has radically altered its diplomatic strategy to address North Korea’s growing capabilities. Washington now focuses on deterrence rather than denuclearization after years of failed talks. Former White House arms control coordinator Gary Samore called this change “inevitable” given North Korea’s determination to keep its nuclear arsenal.

U.S. extended deterrence faces mounting challenges throughout East Asia. South Koreans question American security guarantees due to North Korea’s expanding weapons capabilities, threats of offensive nuclear use, and U.S. missile defense vulnerabilities. These worries have led to stronger security measures:

• The Washington Declaration of April 2023 outlines steps to deter North Korean nuclear weapons use
• The high-level Extended Deterrence Strategy and Consultation Group has been reactivated
• The U.S., South Korea, and Japan have enhanced their trilateral cooperation

In spite of that, U.S. officials privately admit that North Korea’s denuclearization is now “mission impossible”. This reality raises concerning possibilities—particularly that North Korea might develop a “theory of victory” based on nuclear escalation to prevent enemies from pursuing regime change and force them to accept its demands.

The greatest danger comes from North Korea’s strategic goal: to develop reliable weapons that can breach U.S. missile defenses and hit American soil. This capability would transform the nuclear balance in Northeast Asia and potentially destabilize decades of relative peace in the region.

China Modernizes Its Nuclear Triad Rapidly

_{Image Source: 19FortyFive}

China’s nuclear modernization program has changed the global strategic balance faster than anyone expected. Beijing has become the world’s fastest-growing nuclear power. Chinese nuclear forces have transformed dramatically over the last several years. This transformation spans every element of its strategic triad.

Expansion of missile silos and submarine fleet

China’s nuclear buildup shows most clearly in its construction of about 300 new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos across three fields, completed in 2023. This is a big deal as it means that these facilities surpass the number of silo-based ICBMs that Russia operates. China built 120, 110, and 90 silos at Yumen, Hami, and Yulin respectively—more than ten times its previous arsenal of roughly 20 silos.

The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has also stepped up its submarine fleet modernization. It now operates six Jin-class (Type 094) nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines. Experts project this number will grow to 65 submarines by 2025. These vessels carry JL-3 submarine-launched ballistic missiles that can travel over 10,000 kilometers. They can now target the continental United States from waters near China’s coast.

China has also launched several advanced Shang-class (Type 093B) nuclear-powered attack submarines. These submarines feature better speed, noise reduction, and vertical launch systems. The country launched four Type 093B submarines between 2022 and 2023 alone. This shows how quickly their naval nuclear development has advanced.

The Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency has dramatically revised its original projection of 400 warheads by 2030. China now has about 500 nuclear warheads. Experts expect this number to grow beyond 1,000 operational warheads by 2030. Most of these warheads can reach the United States.

Lack of transparency and arms control participation

China keeps its nuclear intentions and capabilities hidden. Unlike other nuclear powers, China never reveals its nuclear arsenal’s size, stockpiled fissile materials, or new warhead production rates. On top of that, Beijing stopped reporting its plutonium holdings to the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2017. This raises concerns about military use of civilian nuclear materials.

China claims it follows a “no first use” policy. Yet its absence from nuclear arms control agreements creates problems. Beijing won’t join the Russian-U.S. nuclear arms control process. It points to the big gap between its nuclear capabilities and those of the two largest nuclear powers. The country has also stayed away from key arms control initiatives like the Australia Group, the Wassenaar Arrangement, and the Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation.

Chinese officials defend their nuclear ambiguity. They claim they’re “transparent with regard to intentions” but avoid sharing numbers. This makes it harder to maintain strategic stability internationally. China’s nuclear expansion also contradicts its long-standing claims of keeping a “minimal deterrent”.

China finally resumed nuclear arms talks with Washington in late 2023 after years of refusing American requests. In spite of that, analysts doubt we’ll see real progress. Beijing continues its massive buildup while claiming its right to modernize without the constraints that Russia and the United States have accepted.

U.S. Faces Doubts Over Extended Deterrence

_{Image Source: War on the Rocks}

U.S. military alliances face unprecedented pressure as the core team of American partners doubt the credibility of U.S. protection guarantees. The foundations of post-Cold War security look increasingly shaky as geopolitical changes push traditional non-nuclear allies to think over options they once considered impossible.

Allies question reliability of American nuclear umbrella

The U.S. pledge to defend allies with nuclear weapons when needed has been the life-blood of global security for decades. This “nuclear umbrella” has kept aggression at bay while discouraging nuclear proliferation. Trust in this arrangement has weakened substantially.

Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk pointed to a “profound change of American geopolitics” that left his country in an “objectively more difficult situation”. He hinted that Poland must think over “opportunities related to nuclear weapons”. Friedrich Merz, likely Germany’s next chancellor, wanted to discuss nuclear sharing deals with France and Britain.

European allies grew more worried after seeing Ukraine’s treatment, as they watched President Zelensky “berated in front of television cameras” and military aid come to a halt. So European leaders put together a collective military spending plan worth about AED 587.51 billion for missile defense and weapons systems.

The 2022 Nuclear Posture Review backed America’s commitment to extended deterrence. All the same, U.S. Defense officials admit that “our current nuclear force posture and planned modernization program is necessary but may well be insufficient in the coming years”. The U.S. managed to keep strong alliances as its “asymmetric advantage over our adversaries”.

Calls for independent deterrents in Japan and South Korea

Doubts about American reliability have sparked serious nuclear talks in the Pacific region. Polls show over 70% of South Koreans want their own nuclear weapons. This support grew stronger after Trump’s return to office.

South Korea’s top diplomat, Cho Tae-yul, stated in February 2025 that nuclear armament was “not off the table”. This marked the biggest change since South Korea signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. President Yoon explained: “What we call extended deterrence was also the U.S. telling us not to worry because it will take care of everything, but now, it’s difficult to convince our people with just that”.

The United States created the Nuclear Consultative Group with South Korea at the Assistant Secretary of Defense level to address these concerns. This group aims to aid “integration across the alliance” and position both countries as “equal partners strengthening deterrence against nuclear and other forms of strategic attack from North Korea”.

Japan takes a more cautious approach by sticking to its Three Non-Nuclear Principles: not possessing, not producing, and not permitting nuclear weapons. Former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo wanted to discuss nuclear sharing, but then-Prime Minister Kishida Fumio strongly opposed this idea. Polls consistently show 70-80% of Japanese believe the Three Non-Nuclear Principles “should be maintained”.

The biggest problem persists: allies might develop their own nuclear weapons if they lose faith in U.S. protection and decide their security needs aren’t met. Ukraine’s experience shows that written security promises without enforcement offer little defense against determined aggressors.

New Players Signal Interest in Nuclear Capabilities

_{Image Source: Brookings Institution}

Nuclear capabilities now attract several nations beyond the 75-year old nuclear powers. Regional tensions drive these countries to reassess their position in an unstable global environment.

Iran’s enrichment progress and JCPOA collapse

The Iranian nuclear program accelerated dramatically after the U.S. pulled out of the nuclear deal in 2018. The time needed for Iran to produce enough fissile material for a weapon has dropped from one year to just a week. The country now holds about 408 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% purity—enough material to create nine nuclear weapons after further enrichment.

Iran started enriching uranium to 60% in April 2021, completing over 90% of the work needed for weapons-grade material. Despite Iran’s claims of having no weapons ambitions, the IAEA has found the country breaking its non-proliferation commitments for the first time in nearly two decades.

Saudi Arabia and Turkey’s hedging strategies

Saudi Arabia made its position clear: “if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we would follow suit as soon as possible”. The kingdom has partnered with China for uranium exploration and built nuclear reactors that can produce yellowcake uranium. This led Saudi Arabia to create its Nuclear Holding Company in 2022 as its nuclear developer.

Turkish President Erdogan challenged the nuclear status quo: “Several countries have missiles with nuclear warheads, not one or two. But [they tell us that] we can’t have them. This I cannot accept”. Turkey remains one of five NATO countries that host about 50 American B61 nuclear bombs at Incirlik Air Base.

Israel’s undeclared arsenal and regional balance

Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal sits at the heart of regional proliferation concerns. Experts estimate it contains between 90-400 warheads. The country maintains a policy of “deliberate ambiguity” about its nuclear weapons and repeats that “Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East”.

This nuclear stance creates a challenging double standard. A regional analyst points out: “Iran is an NPT member and has not made any clear moves toward weaponization… Conversely, Israel refuses to sign the NPT and declare its program”. Israel protects its advantage through the Begin Doctrine of counter-proliferation and destroyed nuclear reactors in Iraq and Syria in 1981 and 2007.

Arms Control Agreements Collapse Amid Rising Tensions

_{Image Source: Department of Defense}

Nuclear arms control agreements negotiated over decades are falling apart faster, creating a dangerous gap in global security. This breakdown could trigger an unrestricted nuclear arms race as international tensions rise.

End of INF and New START uncertainty

The United States withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in August 2019, which led to its collapse. President Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev had signed this crucial agreement in 1987. The US cited Russia’s development of the treaty-prohibited 9M729 cruise missile as the reason. This agreement had eliminated 2,692 missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.

The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) will expire on February 5, 2026. This expiration means the United States and Russia will have no restrictions on their nuclear arsenals for the first time in 50 years. Russia suspended its participation in February 2023 because of Western support for Ukraine. This suspension ended all verification provisions including data exchange, notifications, and on-site inspections. Both countries still observe treaty limits on weapons, but they do this without verification mechanisms.

Russia has abandoned other agreements too. The country revoked its ratification of the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and withdrew from the Open Skies Treaty. An arms control expert noted, “The era of reductions in the number of nuclear weapons in the world, which had lasted since the end of the cold war, is coming to an end”.

Return of theater nuclear weapons in Europe

Tactical nuclear weapons have become strategic assets since the INF Treaty ended. Russia has used unprecedented nuclear rhetoric throughout the Ukraine conflict. The country placed strategic weapons on heightened alert and threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons if Western support crosses undefined “red lines”.

Russia moved tactical nuclear weapons into Belarus – the first such deployment outside Russia since the Soviet Union collapsed. Russian officials also stated they would amend their nuclear doctrine to lower the threshold for nuclear use.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute cautions that the risk of miscalculation and escalation increases as nations develop newer, deadlier technologies without urgent revival of arms control and transparency measures. The lack of binding agreements has created a dangerous strategic environment where nuclear posturing replaces diplomatic restraint.

The Nuclear Age Enters Dangerous New Territory

Nuclear weapons have returned to the vanguard of global security concerns. This marks a dangerous transformation in international relations. The world’s strategic stability, which we managed to keep through bilateral agreements and mutual deterrence, now faces unprecedented challenges as multiple nations build their nuclear capabilities simultaneously.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, along with its explicit nuclear threats, has broken the post-Cold War security structure. The Budapest Memorandum’s collapse now serves as a warning for non-nuclear states as they think about their security guarantees. Nuclear weapons look more attractive to vulnerable nations that watch Ukraine’s situation, especially after its voluntary disarmament.

North Korea shows how nuclear ambition succeeds against international opposition. Pyongyang has built solid-fuel ICBMs that can strike the American mainland, despite sanctions. This success tells other nations a troubling message: determined states can get nuclear weapons whatever economic isolation they face.

China’s rapid nuclear growth adds another layer of complexity. Beijing shows its drive to reach nuclear parity with decades-old powers by building hundreds of missile silos and modernizing its submarine fleet. Their secretive approach and unwillingness to join arms control frameworks creates more instability in this changing scene.

U.S. allies now question extended deterrence promises more than ever. South Korea and Japan must choose between trusting American security guarantees or developing their own nuclear capabilities. European allies also wonder if America would risk nuclear confrontation to defend them, especially after Ukraine’s ordeal.

New nuclear states bring more proliferation risks. Iran moves closer to nuclear capability while Saudi Arabia and Turkey show nuclear ambitions. The breakdown of key arms control agreements like INF and New START’s uncertain future removes vital limits on nuclear competition.

These changes point to a nuclear world that looks nothing like the bipolar Cold War era. Multiple nuclear powers now interact with different capabilities, doctrines, and risk tolerances in a complex system. They lack proper communication channels and crisis management tools.

Nuclear proliferation once stayed in check through global teamwork. Now countries see nuclear weapons as crucial to their sovereignty and survival. The world might enter an era of unlimited nuclear competition with catastrophic results unless nations commit again to arms control, transparency, and security guarantees.