World on the brink of new arms race
The world risks plunging into a 'new dangerous arms race' as most nuclear powers seek to modernize and expand their arsenals, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has warned in its annual review.
The pace of disarmament is slowing as nuclear-armed states launch 'intensive' arsenal modernization programs, the research center said in a paper published on Monday.
Russia and the US, which together possess around 90% of all nuclear weapons in the world, are set to see the last remaining bilateral nuclear arms control treaty – the New START – expire in February 2026, SIPRI noted. The agreement limits the number of simultaneously deployed strategic nuclear warheads.
Moscow suspended its participation in the treaty in 2023, citing the impracticality of the inspection regime due to deep Western involvement in the Ukraine conflict. However, it maintained that it remained open to dialogue on the issue if the arsenals of Washington's NATO allies were also considered.
Washington, meanwhile, insists on including China in any new agreement. According to SIPRI, China possesses the fastest-growing nuclear arsenal in the world and could rival 'either Russia or the USA' in its number of intercontinental ballistic missiles by the end of the decade.
The UK and France are also modernizing their nuclear forces, focusing on nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, the report said. Paris additionally aims to develop a new ballistic missile warhead.
'The era of reductions in the number of nuclear weapons in the world, which had lasted since the end of the Cold War, is coming to an end,' said Hans M. Kristensen, Associate Senior Fellow with SIPRI's Weapons of Mass Destruction Program. 'We see a clear trend of growing nuclear arsenals, sharpened nuclear rhetoric, and the abandonment of arms control agreements.'
The research institute also listed Israel among the nations 'believed to be modernizing its nuclear arsenal.' While West Jerusalem does not officially acknowledge possessing nuclear weapons, SIPRI pointed to tests of new missile propulsion systems and alleged upgrades at the plutonium production reactor site in Dimona.
Israel could have up to 90 nuclear warheads at its disposal, the report stated. The findings come as West Jerusalem conducts air raids against Iranian nuclear and military facilities, claiming the Islamic Republic is nearing the creation of a nuclear bomb. Tehran, which maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful, was not mentioned in the SIPRI report.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
‘If Iran falls, we're next': What Russian experts and politicians are saying about the US strikes
On June 22, the United States, acting in support of its closest ally Israel, launched airstrikes against nuclear sites in Iran. The full consequences of the operation – for Iran's nuclear program and for the broader balance of power in the Middle East – remain uncertain. But in Moscow, reactions were swift. Russian politicians and foreign policy experts have begun drawing conclusions, offering early forecasts and strategic interpretations of what may come next. In this special report, RT presents the view from Russia: a collection of sharp, often contrasting perspectives from analysts and officials on what Washington's latest military move means for the region – and for the world. The trap awaiting Trump is simple – but highly effective. If Iran responds by targeting American assets, the US will be pulled deeper into a military confrontation almost by default. If on the other hand, Tehran holds back or offers only a token response, Israel's leadership – backed by its neoconservative allies in Washington – will seize the moment to pressure the White House: now is the time to finish off a weakened regime and force a convenient replacement. Until that happens, they'll argue the job isn't done. Whether Trump is willing – or even able – to resist that pressure remains uncertain. Most likely, Iran will avoid hitting US targets directly in an effort to prevent a point-of-no-return escalation with American forces. Instead, it will likely intensify its strikes on Israel. Netanyahu, in turn, will double down on his efforts to convince Washington that regime change in Tehran is the only viable path forward – something Trump, at least for now, remains instinctively opposed to. Still, the momentum of military entanglement has a logic of its own, and it's rarely easy to resist. If Iran does nothing, it risks appearing weak – both at home and abroad. That makes a carefully calibrated response almost inevitable: one designed not to escalate the conflict, but to preserve domestic legitimacy and project resolve. Tehran is unlikely to go much further than that. Meanwhile, by continuing to build up its military presence, Washington sends a clear deterrent message – signaling both readiness and resolve in case Tehran miscalculates. Another option for Iran could be a dramatic symbolic move: withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Such a step would be Tehran's way of declaring that Trump, by striking nuclear infrastructure, has effectively dismantled the global nonproliferation regime. The NPT was supposed to guarantee Iran's security; instead, it has delivered the opposite. Still, if Iran goes down that path, it risks damaging ties with Moscow and Beijing – neither of which wants to see a challenge to the existing nuclear order. The bigger question now is whether Iran will even consider returning to talks with Washington after this attack. Why negotiate when American promises no longer mean anything? Tehran urgently needs a mediator who can restrain Trump from further escalation – and right now, the only credible candidate is Moscow. Iran's foreign minister, [Abbas] Araghchi, is set to meet with President Putin on June 23. It's hard to imagine that a potential NPT withdrawal won't be on the table. If in the past an Iranian bomb was considered an existential threat to Israel, the calculus has now reversed: for Iran, nuclear capability is quickly becoming a question of survival. Let's state the obvious: Iraq, Libya – and now Iran – were bombed because they couldn't hit back. They either didn't have weapons of mass destruction or hadn't yet developed them. In some cases, they never even intended to. Meanwhile, the West doesn't touch the four countries that remain outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty: India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. Why? Because unlike Iraq, Libya, and Iran, these states actually possess nuclear weapons. The message to so-called 'threshold' nations couldn't be clearer: if you don't want to be bombed by the West, arm yourself. Build deterrence. Go all the way – even to the point of developing weapons of mass destruction. That's the grim conclusion many countries will draw. It's a dangerous lesson, and one that flies in the face of global security and the very idea of a rules-based international order. Yet it's the West that keeps driving this logic. Iraq was invaded over a vial of powder. Libya gave up its nuclear program and was torn apart. Iran joined the NPT, worked with the IAEA, and didn't attack Israel – unlike Israel, which just struck Iran while staying outside the NPT and refusing to cooperate with nuclear watchdogs. This is more than hypocrisy; it's a catastrophic failure of US policy. Trump's administration has made a colossal mistake. The pursuit of a Nobel Peace Prize has taken on grotesque and dangerous proportions. Some still cling to the illusion that World War III might somehow pass us by. It won't. We are already in the thick of it. The US has carried out a bombing strike against Iran – our ally. Nothing stopped them. And if nothing stopped them from bombing Iran, then nothing will stop them from targeting us next. At some point, they may decide that Russia, like Iran, shouldn't be allowed to possess nuclear weapons – or find some other pretext to strike. Make no mistake: we are at war. The US can attack whether we advance or retreat. It's not about strategy – it's about will. Ukraine may not be Israel in the eyes of the West, but it plays a similar role. Israel didn't always exist; it was created and quickly became a proxy for the collective West – though some Israelis would argue the opposite, that the West is merely a proxy for Israel. Ukraine has followed the same trajectory. No wonder Zelensky isn't asking for Western support – he's demanding it, including nuclear arms. The model is clear. And just like Israel bombs Gaza with impunity, Kiev bombarded Donbass for years – albeit with fewer resources and less restraint from Moscow. Our appeals to the UN and calls for peace have become meaningless. If Iran falls, Russia is next. Trump, once again, is firmly in the grip of the neocons – just as he was during his first term. The MAGA project is over. There is no 'great America,' only standard-issue globalism in its place. Trump thinks he can strike once – like he did with Soleimani – and then walk it back. But there's no walking this back. He has triggered a world war he cannot control, let alone win. Now, everything hinges on Iran. If it stays on its feet and keeps fighting, it might still prevail. The Strait of Hormuz is closed. The Houthis have blocked traffic in the Red Sea. As new players enter the fray, the situation will evolve rapidly. China will try to stay out – for now. Until the first blow lands on them, too. But if Iran folds, it won't just lose itself – it will expose the rest of us. That includes Russia, now facing an existential choice. The question isn't whether to fight. Russia is already fighting. The question is how. The old methods are exhausted. That means we'll have to find a new way to fight – and fast. Judging by the remarks from Hegseth and General Cain at the press conference, the US appears to be signaling the end of its direct involvement – at least for now. Officially, Iran's nuclear program has been 'eliminated.' Whether that's actually true is beside the point. Even if Tehran manages to build a bomb six months from now, the narrative is set: the operation was targeted solely at nuclear infrastructure, with no strikes on military forces or civilians. A narrow, clean, and – according to Washington – decisively successful mission. The job is done, the curtain falls. That doesn't mean Washington is walking away. The US will continue to back Israel and retains the capacity to escalate if needed. But for the moment, the mood seems to be one of self-congratulatory closure. Of course, if they really wanted to go all in, they could've used a tactical nuclear weapon. That would've offered undeniable 'proof' of an Iranian bomb: if it explodes, it must have existed. And second, it would've allowed the administration to claim it had destroyed nuclear weapons on Iranian soil. Both assertions would've been technically accurate – if strategically absurd. None of it would've been factually false. Just morally and politically radioactive. Why did the US choose to strike Iran now, after years of restraint? The answer is simple: fear. For decades, Washington held back out of concern that any attack would trigger a wave of retaliatory terror attacks – possibly hundreds – carried out by sleeper cells tied to Iran and its allies like Hezbollah. The prevailing assumption was that Iran had quietly prepared networks across the US and Israel, ready to unleash chaos in response. But Israel's war in Lebanon dispelled that myth. The feared sleeper cells never materialized. Once that became clear, both Israel and the US realized they could strike Iran with minimal risk of serious blowback. And so, ironically, Iran's restraint – its perceived 'peacefulness' – has paved the way to war. There's a lesson in that for Russia: when the West senses both a willingness to negotiate and a refusal to submit, it responds not with diplomacy, but with force. That is the true face of Western imperialism. Trump has crossed a red line. We're now facing the real possibility of a major military confrontation. Iran could retaliate by striking US military installations across the Middle East, prompting Washington to respond in kind. That would mark the beginning of a drawn-out armed conflict – one the US may find increasingly difficult to contain. What we're witnessing looks very much like a victory for the so-called 'deep state'. Many had expected Trump to hold back, to avoid taking the bait. But he allowed himself to be pulled into a high-risk gamble whose consequences are impossible to predict. And politically, this may backfire. If the standoff with Iran sends oil prices soaring, the fallout could be severe. In the United States, gasoline prices are sacrosanct. Any administration that allows them to spiral out of control faces serious domestic repercussions. For Trump, this could turn into a serious vulnerability. So, what exactly did the US accomplish with its midnight strike on three targets in Iran? 1. Iran's critical nuclear infrastructure appears to be intact – or at worst, only minimally damaged. 2. Uranium enrichment will continue. And let's just say it plainly now: so will Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. 3. Several countries are reportedly ready to supply Iran with nuclear warheads directly. 4. Israel is under fire, explosions are echoing through its cities, and civilians are panicking. 5. The US is now entangled in yet another conflict, this one carrying the very real possibility of a ground war. 6. Iran's political leadership has not only survived – it may have grown stronger. 7. Even Iranians who opposed the regime are now rallying around it. 8. Donald Trump, the self-styled peace president, has just launched a new war. 9. The overwhelming majority of the international community is siding against the US and Israel. 10. At this rate, Trump can kiss that Nobel Peace Prize goodbye – despite how absurdly compromised the award has become. So, congratulations, Mr. President. Truly a stellar start.
Russia Today
4 hours ago
- Russia Today
Vance opposes US involvement in Iran-Israel war
US Vice President J.D. Vance does not support his country's involvement in the conflict between Israel and Iran, Reuters has reported, citing two informed sources. A Reuters article revealing his stance came out on Saturday, hours before US President Donald Trump ordered strikes on Iran's Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan nuclear sites. According to the sources, Vance made his opinion clear during a 'tense' phone call between Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other top officials from Washington and West Jerusalem on Thursday. Netanyahu and his associates used the exchange to try to persuade the US president to give up on the two-week deadline that he had given to Tehran to reach a deal on the country's nuclear program and immediately take part in the Israeli attacks on Iran, the report read. The Israelis argued that there is only a limited window of opportunity to use the American bunker-busting bombs against Iran's deeply-buried Fordow facility, it said. During the call, the Iraq War veteran 'pushed back' against West Jerusalem's demands, insisting that Washington 'should not be directly involved' in the conflict, the sources claimed. His concern was that 'the Israelis were going to drag the country into war,' they added. Vance appeared beside Trump when the president delivered a televised address from the White House, in which he announced the US strike and claimed that the Iranian nuclear sites have been 'completely and totally obliterated.' Tehran claimed that the attacks did not deliver any serious damage. Social media users later shared screenshots of the vice president from the event, describing his facial expression as 'confused' and 'not happy at all.' Later on Sunday, Vance gave an interview to NBC News 'Meet the Press,' saying that 'we do not want war with Iran. We actually want peace, but we want peace in the context of them not having a nuclear weapons program.' If Tehran refrains from targeting US troops in the Middle East in retaliation and gives up on their 'nuclear weapons program once and for all, then I think, the president has been very clear, we can have a good relationship with the Iranians. We can have a peaceful situation in that region of the world,' he argued. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said on Sunday that the US does not have the ability to escape 'heavy responses' by Tehran for its 'illegal military attack on the peaceful nuclear facilities' in Iran. The IRGC claimed that it has already identified the locations where the planes that took part in the strikes are stationed.
Russia Today
8 hours ago
- Russia Today
US to demand student visa applicants make social media public
The US State Department has announced new rules for student visa applications that require public access to non-citizens' social media accounts. The changes expand screening for those seeking to study in the United States. Last month, US President Donald Trump's administration ordered consulates to pause new student and exchange visa appointments while finalizing the updated procedures. A cable from Secretary of State Marco Rubio instructed posts not to increase appointment capacity until new guidance was issued. The new requirements apply to F, M, and J visa categories, covering academic, vocational, and exchange programs. The State Department said it would use all available data to identify applicants who may pose a national security threat or fail to meet visa conditions. 'Under new guidance, we will conduct a comprehensive and thorough vetting, including online presence, of all student and exchange visitor applicants in the F, M, and J nonimmigrant classifications,' the department said on Wednesday. It added that all applicants in the affected categories 'will be instructed to adjust the privacy settings on all of their social media profiles to 'public'.' A separate cable obtained by Politico ordered US diplomats to examine online activity for signs of hostility toward Americans, support for Hamas or other terrorist groups, or anti-Semitic violence. 'Online presence' includes not only social media but public records and databases such as LexisNexis. Officers must take screenshots and prepare case notes. Since returning to office, Trump has called on universities to shut down anti-Israel protests, which he described as anti-Semitic, and to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The new visa policy follows a pilot screening effort at Harvard University, where several foreign students were denied entry after officials flagged their online content. The administration later revoked the school's authorization to enroll international applicants, accusing it of failing to act against campus extremism and rejecting federal oversight. Harvard denounced the measures as unlawful and politically retaliatory, claiming they do serious harm to its academic mission and global reputation.
