Thomas Countryman on New START Expiry and the Value of Arms Control
•February 6, 2026
0
Why It Matters
Without a successor to New START, the U.S. risks a costly, destabilizing nuclear buildup involving Russia and China, undermining global security and fiscal prudence.
Key Takeaways
- •New START expires soon, replacement urged.
- •Experts call for US‑Russia negotiations, China consultations.
- •Inter‑agency expertise eroded, hindering treaty work.
- •Failure risks costly three‑way nuclear arms race.
- •Arms control viewed as cost‑effective national security.
Pulse Analysis
The looming expiration of the New START treaty marks a critical juncture for U.S. nuclear policy. First enacted in 2010, the agreement capped deployed strategic warheads and delivery systems for both the United States and Russia, providing a framework for verification and confidence‑building. As the treaty approaches its 2026 deadline, policymakers face a narrow window to negotiate a successor that can address emerging challenges, including China’s expanding nuclear capabilities. The loss of seasoned negotiators from the State Department further complicates the process, underscoring the need for a revitalized inter‑agency team with deep expertise in arms control diplomacy.
Beyond the diplomatic mechanics, the economic stakes are substantial. Maintaining the current nuclear arsenal costs the United States roughly $100 billion annually, a figure that could rise sharply without arms‑control constraints. A renewed treaty could embed mechanisms to reduce warhead counts across the three major nuclear powers, delivering direct budgetary relief while enhancing strategic stability. Moreover, a multilateral approach that includes China would signal a shift from a bilateral U.S.–Russia focus to a broader, more inclusive framework, potentially curbing a new three‑way arms race reminiscent of Cold‑War tensions.
Strategically, arms control remains a cornerstone of national security, offering the most efficient means to mitigate nuclear risk. By establishing clear rules of the road, verification protocols, and reduction targets, treaties like New START lower the probability of miscalculation and accidental escalation. For the private sector and investors, a stable arms‑control environment translates into reduced geopolitical volatility, which supports global markets and supply chains. Consequently, swift action to replace New START not only safeguards global peace but also protects economic interests, making it a priority for both policymakers and the broader business community.
Thomas Countryman on New START Expiry and the Value of Arms Control
Fri, 02/06/2026 - 11:45
Countryman's remarks begin at timestamp 27:25.
Thomas Countryman on New START Expiry and the Value of Arms Control
February 4, 2026
Prior to New START’s expiration, ACA board chair Tom Countryman joined Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, California Representative John Garamendi, ACA Executive Director Daryl G. Kimball, FAS Director of Global Risk Jon Wolfsthal, and Senior Fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis Lynn Rusten to urge the replacement of New START and a return to negotiations to prevent an new and more dangerous three-way arms race.
"I want to believe that Donald Trump is sincere in the occasional brief comments he has made about denuclearization, about wanting to see a smaller arsenal, about wanting to spend less than a hundred billion dollars a year as we do today in maintaining our nuclear weapons and the complex that supports them.
I want to believe that.
But I hope he also knows that this is not a real estate deal that can be concluded over a cup of tea with another leader.
Arms control treaties require detailed preparation and long negotiations by an expert inter-agency team. And the inter-agency team, by the way, has largely been decimated with most of the people experienced in negotiating with Russia removed from the State Department in the last year.
Still, I want to believe that there can be a new and productive era in arms control - a stronger agreement that doesn't just set rules of the road to reduce risk, but that actually reduces the number of warheads in three arsenals and reduces the amount of money the American people pay to maintain that arsenal.
To get there, President Trump needs to take a deep breath and not begin uploading missiles tomorrow. Rather, take advantage of the fact that you've got time to make decisions and more importantly, you've got time to talk to the other side.
He should empower a qualified team of experienced professionals to begin negotiations with Russia. He should authorize a qualified team of experienced professionals to begin consultations, not negotiations, but consultations with China.
This is the path forward.
We do not have to set back the goals that 10 presidents in a row have expressed of reducing nuclear danger by rushing to an immediate buildup.
One more thought to build on what my friend Lynn Rusten, Senior Fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, said.
What is arms control?
Arms control is not an end in itself. It is not virtue signaling. It is not a guaranteed path to a Nobel Peace Prize, although historically, it's not a bad path to that peace prize.
Arms control is national security.
It is the most efficient, the least risky, the least costly form of national security. And if this administration fails to make it a priority today, we will face a trilateral nuclear arms race that will exceed in cost and in danger what we lived through during the Cold War.
Let's make a smarter choice."
0
Comments
Want to join the conversation?
Loading comments...