The nuclear weapons era is making a comeback, and experts say we’re all not paying attention

At that rate, China will have 1,550 warheads — putting it on par with US and Russian capabilities — by 2035.

That would be the Two-Peer Problem: A three-way tie that experts fear will shatter the past basis for nuclear negotiations.

A simple way to understand this dilemma is to look at the numbers.

The US and Russia previously agreed to limit arsenals to 1,550 deployed warheads each.

If China were to reach parity, Washington would want an arsenal matching Moscow’s and Beijing’s combined, or theoretically 3,100 warheads.

Russia and China are more likely to think the appropriate equilibrium is for everyone to deploy 1,550 warheads each. However, given their close ties, the US is unlikely to accept such an agreement.

With no common number to reach, the three powers will be prone to rushing to gain the upper hand, Acton said.

“Once this arms race really kicks off, I think it’s going to be very, very, very hard to stop it,” he added.

The race against 2035

By its calculations, Washington now has only 11 years to find and establish a solution by 2035. That’s a short window for nuclear programs, which are generally rolled out over decades, not years.

“Decisions need to be made now,” wrote the Commission.

The recommendations in its report included putting multiple warheads on one intercontinental ballistic missile (known as MIRV), building more B-21 stealth bombers, and basing nuclear weapons in the Indo-Pacific region.

Russia, meanwhile, spent the last two years making nuclear threats over the war in Ukraine.

To scholars supporting a US nuclear expansion, the situation has deteriorated so drastically that the time to simply hope for negotiations has passed. America must act, they told BI.

“I think when the United States is strong, our adversaries think: ‘Okay, this is dangerous. We don’t want to get into a conflict with the United States,'” Matt Kroenig, a professor at Georgetown University’s government studies department. He was also one of the 12 Commissioners.

“When the United States is weak, that’s when you see aggression and violence,” he added.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry and embassy in Washington did not respond to requests for comment sent by BI.

Not all experts are convinced

Scholars who disagree said the US is looking at the Two-Peer Problem incorrectly.

Nuclear weapons are widely understood as the ultimate defense against existential threats like invasion, and these experts say the US can maintain that even if it has fewer nuclear weapons.

“We should focus on keeping our nuclear arsenal survivable, safe, secure, and reliable,” said Acton of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “We don’t need to compete with them numerically. It won’t enhance deterrence to do so.”

Goldstein of Brown University fears that money will be siphoned from other pressing domestic interests.

“Schools and hospitals and high-speed rails and all the things that we’d like to have in our country. We don’t have them. One reason is because we’re spending trillions on nuclear weapons,” he said.

David Kearn, who studied missiles for RAND and advised the Defense Secretary’s office from 2016 to 2017, believes nuclear spending will distract from conventional weapons development.

In July, a congressional review found that the US was already unprepared to fight a war against either China or Russia.

“They’re saying the sea-launched cruise missile would be $12 billion. That could be almost two attack submarines. I’ll take the two attack subs, please,” said Kearn, now an associate professor of politics at St. John’s University.

Analysts like Weaver say the Pentagon only spends a small fraction of its annual defense budget on nuclear weapons, and that the US can reasonably achieve a more powerful nuclear deterrent with prudent spending.

“We can do it if it’s the priority,” said Rebeccah Heinrichs, one of the 12 Commissioners and director of the Hudson Institute’s Keystone Defense Initiative. “But if climate change, for example, competes with the priority to maintain the peace and deter China and Russia, it will prevent us from doing it.”

‘That’s ancient history’

Despite growing signs of an uncontrollable arms race, several experts said they feel public focus on the issue has been strangely absent.

“I think it’s generational,” Kroenig said. “Even when I was in graduate school in the early 2000s, I had many of my advisors saying: ‘Nuclear weapons? That’s a Cold War issue. That’s ancient history. Study something relevant like terrorism or insurgency.'”

Giovannini said organizations studying nuclear weapons are struggling to recruit young analysts and students. “They are more interested in the artificial intelligence space than nuclear weapons,” she said.

As 2035 approaches, experts can see a future with three nuclear superpowers and almost zero negotiation.

“I’m afraid unless we can get talks on track, we will be back to where we were in the 1950s,” said Gottemoeller. “When governments simply weren’t willing to talk to each other about this.”

“And what did it produce?” she said. “A severe crisis. The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, when we came to the brink of nuclear annihilation.”