theguardian.com
Nuclear Risks Rise as New START Treaty Nears Expiration
The 40th anniversary of Reagan and Gorbachev's declaration that nuclear war is unwinnable coincides with growing nuclear risks, as the New START treaty nears expiration and the potential for a new arms race looms, with Donald Trump set to re-assume the presidency, adding to international concerns.
- What are the immediate risks posed by the expiration of the New START treaty in 2026, given the current geopolitical climate and the potential for increased nuclear proliferation?
- Forty years after Reagan and Gorbachev declared nuclear war unwinnable, the world faces renewed risk. Nuclear arsenals, though reduced from 60,000 to roughly 11,000, remain dangerously high. Donald Trump's presidency heightens concerns, given his past statements about nuclear weapons.
- How did past attempts at nuclear disarmament, such as the Reykjavik Summit, influence the current nuclear landscape, and what lessons can be learned from those successes and failures?
- The 2010 New START treaty, limiting deployed warheads, is expiring in 2026 without a successor. This, coupled with rising tensions between the US and Russia (holding 90% of global nuclear weapons) and the potential for an unconstrained arms race, poses a severe threat. China's nuclear buildup further exacerbates the situation.
- What are the long-term societal and environmental consequences of a large-scale nuclear war, and how might those consequences affect international relations and global cooperation in the aftermath?
- The lack of a global consensus on nuclear disarmament, despite the 2017 UN treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons, leaves the world vulnerable. A potential return to Cold War-era dynamics, particularly with a US president known for unpredictable behavior, could trigger catastrophic conflict and unprecedented devastation. The Doomsday Clock at 90 seconds to midnight reflects this dire reality.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the risk of nuclear war largely through the lens of the potential actions of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. While their roles are significant, this framing potentially overemphasizes the personal characteristics of individual leaders while underplaying the broader systemic factors, historical precedents, and complex international dynamics that contribute to the ongoing nuclear threat. The headline and opening paragraphs focus on the anniversary of Reagan and Gorbachev's declaration, but quickly shift to a focus on Trump's potential actions. This shifts the narrative from a broader historical perspective to a more immediate and potentially alarmist one centered around a single individual.
Language Bias
The article employs strong and emotive language, such as 'planet-ending arsenal,' 'apocalypse,' and 'catastrophic mistake,' to emphasize the severity of the nuclear threat. While this language is effective in conveying the gravity of the situation, it also injects a degree of alarmist and subjective tone. For instance, 'planet-ending arsenal' could be replaced with 'significant nuclear capabilities' to maintain impact while avoiding hyperbolic language. Other emotionally charged words like 'recklessly' and 'dismal' could be replaced with more neutral terms such as 'without sufficient caution' or 'unfavorable'.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the US and Russia's nuclear arsenals and their relationship, neglecting the nuclear capabilities and perspectives of other countries like China, Pakistan, India, North Korea, and Israel. The omission of these actors limits the scope of the analysis and presents an incomplete picture of the global nuclear landscape. While the article mentions China's potential buildup, it doesn't delve into the details of their nuclear program or their strategic thinking regarding nuclear weapons. This omission could mislead the reader into believing that the US-Russia relationship is the sole determinant of nuclear risk.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat false dichotomy between nuclear deterrence and complete disarmament, implying that these are the only two viable options. It acknowledges the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons but frames the opposition from nuclear-armed states as simply 'sceptical, if not scornful,' thereby downplaying the complex geopolitical and strategic considerations that underpin their reluctance to disarm. The narrative doesn't sufficiently explore alternative approaches to nuclear risk reduction, such as arms control agreements beyond New START or confidence-building measures.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the persistent threat of nuclear war, the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual (president), and the lack of sufficient international cooperation to reduce nuclear arsenals. These factors undermine peace, justice, and the effective functioning of global institutions responsible for maintaining international security.