Is the world on the brink of another nuclear arms race?

“The 360” shows you diverse perspectives on the day’s top stories and debates.

What’s happening

The Japanese city of Nagasaki held a somber ceremony on Sunday to mark the 75th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing that killed 70,000 people in the waning days of World War II. The attack came just three days after the American military bombed Hiroshima, killing 140,000.

These remain the only instances in which nuclear bombs have been used in war, but the specter of an apocalyptic conflict has hovered over international conflicts ever since. After a series of close calls in the 1950s and 1960s that led to the brink of nuclear war — including the Cuban missile crisis — leaders from the U.S. and Soviet Union saw mutual benefit in de-escalating the nuclear arms race. In 1972, they signed the first of what would become a series of arms control treaties that, though far from perfect, have helped temper the risk of nuclear war for the past 50 years.

Those agreements have gradually unraveled in recent years. President Trump has withdrawn from two of the three arms control deals that were in place when he took office, in part because Russia had violated the terms of the agreements. The third deal, known as New START, is set to expire in early February, just two weeks after the start of the next presidential term.

Russian president Vladimir Putin has said he is willing to extend the deal, but the Trump administration hasn’t taken him up on his offer. If New START is allowed to run out, the world’s two major nuclear powers will be operating without an arms control agreement for the first time in a half-century.

Why there’s debate

The dissolution of these pacts has led many experts to fear that the world may be on the brink of another nuclear arms race.

Though the U.S. and Russia have drastically reduced the number of nuclear weapons they possess, both countries still have arsenals large enough to destroy all life on Earth many times over. Current warheads are many times more powerful than the ones dropped on Japan. The two countries have also invested in new technologies — such as Russia’s hypersonic weapon — that can evade missile defense systems and strike anywhere on the planet. Some experts fear that the development of “low-yield” nuclear bombs, which are smaller and less deadly, could make it more likely one actually is used.

The calculus of arms control has shifted in recent decades as more countries have acquired nuclear capabilities. When the first treaties were signed, the focus was on a possible confrontation between the Americans and Soviets. Today, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea also have nuclear weapons. Iran and Saudi Arabia may be on the path to acquiring them, as well. The increased number of nuclear nations makes any arms control negotiations much more complex and increases the number of scenarios in which an attack may occur.

Perhaps the biggest challenge to future arms control is the emergence of China as a major nuclear power. Though its arsenal is much smaller than Russia’s or America’s, China has expanded its capabilities to the point where the Trump administration has suggested it will allow New START to expire if the Chinese aren’t involved. Beijing’s eagerness to catch up in the nuclear race could push Russia and the U.S. to up their production in order to stay ahead, resulting in a three-way arms race, some experts fear.

Even with all of these complicating factors, there is still optimism that another era of heightened nuclear tensions can be avoided. Trump could change his mind and renew New START before the deadline. Joe Biden has indicated he would do so if he were to win the presidency. There are also factors that could stifle another arms race that don’t involve formal treaties. One of the biggest is money. Expanding and updating a nuclear arsenal is extraordinarily expensive. The global recession caused by the coronavirus may mean nations simply lack the funds to aggressively compete with their rivals.

Larger nuclear stockpiles also don’t necessarily change the likelihood that an atomic bomb might be used. The principle of mutually assured destruction, which has been a major factor in preventing a nuclear attack since 1945, still stands regardless of how large or sophisticated a country’s arsenal becomes.

Perspectives

Why there’s concern

New conflicts have increased potential flashpoints

“While nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945, great-power military flashpoints are increasing the risk that they might be. These potential triggers include the South China Sea, Taiwan, the India-Pakistan and India-China borders, the U.S.-Israel-Iran conflict, North Korea and Ukraine.” — Simon Tisdall, Guardian

The public has become complacent about the nuclear threat

“The absence of public debate or a sense of alarm about the grim advent of sophisticated new nuclear, hypersonic, cyber and space weapons is striking. In the decades after Hiroshima, noisy anti-nuclear ‘ban the bomb’ protests … spanned the globe. Today, by comparison, an eerie silence reigns.” — Simon Tisdall, Guardian

Nuclear weapons held by unstable nations raises the pressure for everyone

“Today, nuclear arms are in the hands of states with weak institutions, including Pakistan, which shares a disputed border with nuclear-armed India, as well as despots, such as North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, whose tolerance for risk is hard to assess.” — Ruadhán Mac Cormaic, Irish Times

China has no incentive to participate in arms control treaties

“Beijing has absolutely no reason to become part of US–Russian arms control talks at this point and has made that clear on many occasions. Moreover, although the administration has been talking about this for two years, it has taken no diplomatic steps—plans, proposals, or drafts exchanged—to make it happen.” — Jessica T. Mathews, New York Review of Books

The end of cooperation could set off a new nuclear arms race

“Without the longstanding architecture in place, Washington and Moscow would enter a dangerous arms control hiatus and could see already poor relations spiral out of control. The US and Russia have many nuclear-tipped missiles already pointed at each other, but it would be even worse if both sides try to one-up their adversary by creating more deadly and usable weapons. That, unfortunately, is exactly what’s happening. Welcome to the new arms race.” — Alex Ward, Vox

Why there’s hope

Biden would likely reverse the trend of crumbling nuclear diplomacy

“Joe Biden … reiterated his commitment to extending New START if elected (he'd have 15 days to exchange diplomatic notes with Russia). Its fate would be far more uncertain in a second Trump term.” — Dave Lawler, Axios

Recent tensions shouldn’t overshadow the enormous progress that’s been made

“The ultimate protection against a nuclear war is to eliminate nuclear weapons altogether. But in the meantime, we should not disregard the achievements of six decades of nuclear arms control.” — William Hartung, Forbes

China doesn’t appear eager to get locked in an arms race

“As much as American national security culture obsesses over nuclear inferiority, there’s simply not much enthusiasm in Beijing to outpace the U.S. here in any meaningful way.” — Ankit Panda, New Republic

The U.S. can and should lead the way into a new era of nuclear arms control

“The world’s most powerful nation must resume its responsibilities as custodian of the nuclear peace. ...If the world can’t trust the United States, with its overwhelming nuclear advantage, to stand guard and enforce a degree of peace, other nations will feel obligated, or emboldened, to create their own nuclear umbrellas.” — David Von Drehle, Washington Post

The pandemic may have made it impossible to pay for more nuclear weapons

“[The U.S. nuclear plan] was excessive, unaffordable and unsustainable before the coronavirus pandemic hit. Now, with the exploding federal debt, the need for trillions more spending for economic stimulus and relief, plus the other demands of the $700 billion plus annual defense budget, Congress will want to — and will need to — delay, trim, or even cancel some of the major elements of the nuclear modernization plan.” — Daryl G. Kimball, Just Security

Is there a topic you’d like to see covered in “The 360”? Send your suggestions to the360@yahoonews.com.

Read more “360”s

Photo illustration: Yahoo News; photos: Getty Images