THE rapid transformation in international politics has systematically increased the nuclear perils. Strategic competition among the great powers led to the demise of the arms control architecture built over the last six decades. Moreover, the eleventh Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty failed to produce a consensus document that underscores the Treaty’s weakening and the surging risks of nuclear proliferation, the escalating dangers of nuclear proliferation and the heightened probability of nuclear weapons use. These definitely ring alarm bells about the “Sword of Damocles” that hung over the first nuclear age and has again hovered over the fourth nuclear age.
There are sequential developments in the first half of 2026 that underscore the growing nuclear perils in the global strategic environment. Among them, four interlinked developments are remarkable. First, the expiration of New START—the last remaining major arms control treaty between the United States and Russia—in February 2026. It is the demise of the arms control architecture between Moscow and Washington, and the restarting of the deadly arms race between them. For instance, the Kremlin conducted a new nuclear-powered cruise missile test named Burevestnik on October 21, 2025, and a nuclear-powered autonomous super torpedo, named Poseidon, on October 28, 2025.
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), in its recent publication, drew attention to the increase in the potential use of nuclear warheads. Accordingly, of the total global inventory of an estimated 12187 nuclear warheads in January 2026, about 9745 were in military stockpiles for potential use, which is roughly 130 more than SIPRI’s estimate for January 2025. It also claimed that the nine nuclear-armed states—the United States, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, or North Korea), and Israel—continued to modernize their nuclear arsenals in 2025 and most deployed new nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable weapon systems during the year. It is a dangerous escalatory step of vertical nuclear proliferation, which could instigate horizontal proliferation.
Second, the nuclear-armed states’ aggression against conventionally inferior non-nuclear-weapon states triggers the deadliest asymmetrical warfare in Europe and the Middle East. It has immensely influenced contemporary strategic thinking, which favors vertical and horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons. Importantly, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, President Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and President Donald Trump maintain a nuclear saber-rattling despite the conventional balance of power in their favor, raising alarms about the increasing probability of the use of nuclear weapons. They bolstered their conventional aggressions with nuclear threats during their unjustifiable invasions in recent years. They signaled that they could use nuclear weapons to accomplish their objectives.
President Putin has backstopped his conventional aggression with nuclear threats since the beginning of the Russian-Ukrainian war in February 2022. He repeatedly signaled that the Kremlin could use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack posing a “critical threat to our [Russian Federation] sovereignty.”
President Donald Trump threatened Iran on April 7, 2026, that “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again” unless it agrees to a deal to end the war and unblock the Strait of Hormuz. Ironically, President Trump often expressed his desire for “denuclearisation” negotiations with Russia and China because of the high costs and devastating effects of nuclear weapons. Instead of denuclearisation, he issued nuclear threats, announced costly plans to modernize and upgrade the U.S. arsenal, suggested resuming nuclear explosive testing, and announced plans for a national missile defense.
Third, the revelation by SIPRI that India has “deployed” 12 of its 190 nuclear weapons. India’s mating of nuclear warheads to delivery systems and deployment could compel Pakistan to consider its own nuclear weapons deployment to sustain the credibility of its Full Spectrum Deterrence (FSD) nuclear posture. Thus, India’s deployment of nuclear weapons is a dangerous escalatory shift in the nuclearized South Asia that negatively impacts deterrence dynamics in the region and undermines regional strategic stability.
Fourth, the development and integration of new emerging technologies into military systems are increasing the nuclear risks. The investment in hypersonic nuclear delivery vehicles, offensive cyber capabilities, and the integration of artificial intelligence into command and control and delivery platforms, etc., is increasing the challenges of controlling or managing these devastating weapons during peacetime as well as in crisis. To conclude, the vertical proliferation and nuclear saber-rattling alarm about the risk of miscalculation, escalation, and nuclear use rebuff the political and moral restraints associated with the nuclear taboo. Thus, it increases the likelihood of horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons and the fading of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.
—The writer is Vice Chancellor of the Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.
