Since 2011 – Progress and Danger (HSC SSCE Modern History): Revision Notes

Since 2011 – Progress and Danger

Introduction

The period since 2011 has witnessed a concerning reversal in nuclear disarmament efforts. Rising geopolitical tensions have led to the collapse of key arms control treaties and the expansion of nuclear arsenals. For the first time since the 1970s, there are no legally binding limits on strategic nuclear weapons between major powers. Despite these setbacks, some non-proliferation efforts have continued, creating a complex picture of both progress and danger in the nuclear age up to 2026.

The collapse of arms control treaties

New START treaty

The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) was signed in 2010 and represented the last major bilateral agreement between the United States and Russia. The treaty limited each nation to 1,550 deployed strategic warheads. However, the agreement faced serious challenges when Russia suspended its participation in 2023 amid tensions over the Ukraine war. This suspension halted crucial inspections and data exchanges that had provided transparency and verification.

By early 2026, both the United States and Russia had ceased compliance with the treaty, which officially expired in February 2026. This marked the end of the last significant arms control agreement between the world's two largest nuclear powers.

Failed negotiations for a successor

Despite interest from U.S. President Trump in negotiating a new treaty that would include China alongside the United States and Russia, no successor agreement emerged. This failure meant that for the first time since the 1970s, there were no legally binding limits on the strategic arsenals of nuclear powers. The inclusion of China proved a major stumbling block, as China opposed limits without first achieving parity with U.S. and Russian arsenals.

INF treaty termination

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, originally signed in 1987, had already collapsed in 2019. Both the United States and Russia accused each other of violations, leading to the treaty's termination. This allowed both nations to freely develop intermediate-range missiles, weapons that had been banned for over three decades.

NPT review conferences and challenges

Failed review conferences

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) holds review conferences every five years to assess progress on its three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. However, both the 2015 and 2022 NPT review conferences failed to produce consensus documents. Disputes centred on disagreements about disarmament progress by nuclear-weapon states and unresolved Middle East issues, particularly concerning Israel's undeclared nuclear programme.

The 2026 NPT review conference

The next NPT Review Conference was scheduled for 27 April to 22 May 2026 in New York. Preparations occurred against a backdrop of stalled disarmament efforts and increasing tensions. While 191 states parties reaffirmed the treaty's central role in preventing nuclear proliferation, the conference faced significant divisions over Russia's actions in Ukraine and ongoing proliferation concerns.

The NPT's continuing importance

Despite these challenges, the NPT remains the cornerstone of the global non-proliferation regime. Ongoing preparatory work has highlighted the urgent needs for greater transparency in nuclear arsenals and meaningful risk reduction measures between nuclear-armed states.

Modernisation and arsenal expansion

Major powers' modernisation programs

Since 2011, the United States, Russia, and China have all pursued extensive modernisation of their nuclear arsenals:

• United States: Developed new B61-12 gravity bombs and began construction of Columbia-class nuclear submarines to replace the aging Ohio-class fleet. These programs represented billions of dollars in investment to maintain and upgrade America's nuclear triad.
• Russia: Deployed advanced hypersonic weapons systems, including the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle and Kinzhal air-launched missile. These systems are designed to evade missile defence systems.
• China: Undertook a rapid expansion of its nuclear arsenal, with estimates suggesting growth to approximately 500 warheads by 2026. This represented a significant increase from China's historically small arsenal and reflected its ambition to achieve strategic parity with the United States and Russia.

Stagnant global stockpiles

Global nuclear stockpiles hovered around 12,000 warheads in 2026. While this represented a dramatic reduction from Cold War peaks of over 60,000 warheads, further reductions had stalled since approximately 2010. The era of significant bilateral disarmament appeared to have ended.

Testing authorisations

The Trump administration, after returning to power post-2025, authorised potential new U.S. nuclear tests if other nations resumed testing. This occurred amid concerns about China's expansion of its Lop Nur nuclear test site in Xinjiang. Although no major power had conducted nuclear tests since 1996, these developments suggested the possibility of a resumption of testing, which would mark a significant regression in non-proliferation norms.

Proliferation risks

Several states of concern developed their nuclear capabilities during this period, raising fears about the spread of nuclear weapons:

State/Issue	Key Developments 2011–2026	Implications
North Korea	Expanded arsenal to potentially 400 warheads by 2040; Yongbyon facility growth; advanced missiles	Heightens Asian tensions; defies UN sanctions
Iran	Advanced centrifuges despite JCPOA collapse (2018); near-breakout capability	Risks Middle East arms race; stalled diplomacy
China	Rapid buildup; opposes limits without U.S./Russia parity	Ends bipolar stability; tri-polar risks
South Korea/Saudi Arabia	Growing technical/political incentives amid neighbours' advances	Potential new proliferators eroding NPT

North Korea's nuclear expansion

North Korea significantly expanded its nuclear program despite international sanctions. The Yongbyon nuclear facility grew in capacity, and North Korea developed advanced missile systems capable of reaching the United States. Estimates suggested North Korea could possess up to 400 warheads by 2040, making it a major nuclear power. These developments heightened tensions throughout Asia and demonstrated the regime's defiance of UN Security Council sanctions.

Iran's nuclear advances

Despite the collapse of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 when the United States withdrew, Iran continued to advance its nuclear capabilities. The country deployed more advanced centrifuges for uranium enrichment and achieved near-breakout capability, meaning it could potentially produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear bomb within weeks if it chose to do so. This situation risked triggering a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and stalled diplomatic efforts to revive the nuclear agreement.

China's strategic buildup

China's rapid nuclear buildup represented a fundamental shift in the global nuclear balance. For decades, China had maintained a relatively small nuclear arsenal. However, by opposing arms control limits without achieving parity with U.S. and Russian arsenals first, China effectively ended the bipolar nuclear stability that had characterised the Cold War and post-Cold War periods. The emergence of a tri-polar nuclear world created new risks and uncertainties in strategic stability.

Potential new proliferators

Both South Korea and Saudi Arabia showed growing technical and political incentives to develop nuclear weapons. South Korea faced threats from North Korea's expanding arsenal, while Saudi Arabia was concerned about Iran's nuclear advances. If these nations pursued nuclear weapons, it would represent a significant erosion of the NPT regime and could trigger further proliferation.

Regional crises and nuclear threats

Regional conflicts increasingly featured nuclear dimensions. The Russia-Ukraine war, ongoing in 2026, saw Russia make thinly veiled nuclear threats and emphasise its tactical nuclear weapons. These developments lowered the threshold for nuclear use by suggesting that nuclear weapons could be employed in conventional conflicts, a dangerous erosion of the taboo against nuclear warfare.

Emerging technological and strategic dangers

New technological risks

Several emerging technologies created new vulnerabilities in nuclear command and control:

• Cyber vulnerabilities: Nuclear command and control systems faced potential cyber attacks that could compromise early warning systems or communication networks.
• Artificial intelligence: The integration of AI into nuclear command systems raised concerns about autonomous decision-making and the reduced role of human judgment in nuclear launch decisions.
• Accidents at nuclear facilities: Ongoing conflicts threatened nuclear power plants, exemplified by fighting around Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear facility, Europe's largest nuclear power plant. Such accidents could cause radiological disasters even without nuclear weapons being used.

Erosion of norms against nuclear use

Perhaps most concerningly, long-standing norms against nuclear use showed signs of erosion. Russia's threats to use nuclear weapons in the Ukraine conflict and North Korea's regular nuclear tests and threatening rhetoric suggested that limited nuclear use might be feasible. This represented a dangerous shift from the Cold War understanding that nuclear weapons were weapons of last resort whose use would trigger catastrophic escalation.

Signals of a new arms race

Although no major power had conducted nuclear tests since 1996, the extensive modernisation programs and arsenal expansions signalled the beginning of a new nuclear arms race. Unlike the Cold War arms race, which was primarily bilateral between the United States and Soviet Union, this new competition involved at least three major powers and potentially more regional actors.

Progress amid significant challenges

Despite the concerning trends described above, some positive developments occurred during this period, demonstrating that progress remains possible even in challenging times.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

Despite the negative trends in arms control, some progress occurred. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) entered into force in 2017 and gained over 70 states parties by 2026. The TPNW comprehensively banned nuclear weapons and aimed to stigmatise their possession and use.

However, the treaty's impact remained limited because all nuclear-weapon states and their allies boycotted it. Nevertheless, the TPNW represented an important statement of principle by the majority of non-nuclear-weapon states and increased pressure on nuclear powers to take disarmament seriously.

P5 dialogues

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council (P5) – the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France – continued dialogues on nuclear risk reduction. These discussions addressed topics such as nuclear doctrine, strategic stability, and confidence-building measures.

However, these dialogues yielded limited concrete results. The deteriorating relationship between the United States and Russia, combined with China's reluctance to engage in arms control, meant that the P5 process produced little substantive progress toward disarmament or even meaningful risk reduction.

Civil society and humanitarian movements

Public advocacy and humanitarian movements continued to push for nuclear disarmament. These groups highlighted the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons use and influenced discussions at NPT Review Conferences. While they did not achieve disarmament, they kept the issue on the international agenda and provided moral pressure on nuclear-weapon states.