By Huan Yuping, People’s Daily
In February of this year, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) moved toward what observers described as a “natural death” after the United States declined to respond to Russia’s proposal to extend the treaty’s core limits.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned that the risk of nuclear weapon use is the highest in decades. Yet instead of reflecting on its own responsibilities, certain voices within the United States have chosen to shift blame. They have amplified claims of a so-called “China nuclear threat” and renewed calls for China to join U.S.-Russia nuclear arms control negotiations.
Nuclear arms control is a crucial for global strategic stability. The question then becomes: Who is creating risks, and who is acting as a responsible guardian? Looking closely at the key questions makes the answers increasingly clear.
What Are the Main Concerns Facing Nuclear Arms Control Today?
The answer is clear: the greatest threat to the international nuclear arms control regime today comes from the United States’ policy backsliding.
The collapse of New START effectively signals the dismantling of the nuclear arms control framework between the United States and Russia that has been in place since the Cold War.
Russia proposed that both sides voluntarily adhere to the treaty’s numerical limits for at least one year following its expiration. The United States, however, offered no formal response. This leaves the international community navigating uncharted territory.
In recent years, the United States has withdrawn from several key arms control and trust-building mechanisms, including the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and the Open Skies Treaty, steadily weakening the global security architecture.
At the same time, Washington has continued to elevate the role of nuclear weapons in its national security strategy. Its fiscal year 2026 budget allocates $98.6 billion for nuclear force development, a record high.
According to a report by The New York Times, the U.S. government is considering exceeding the numerical limits set by New START in ways that could easily trigger a new arms race.
The United States possesses one of the world’s largest and most advanced nuclear arsenals. It pursues a strategy of exclusive and absolute security, maintains a first-use nuclear policy, and has built a “nuclear alliance” through nuclear sharing and extended deterrence. Notably, it deploys more nuclear weapons abroad than any other country.
Washington also plans to develop and deploy the “Golden Dome” missile defense system, while positioning land-based intermediate-range missiles and global missile defense systems near other nuclear-armed states.
These actions seriously undermine the legitimate security interests of other nuclear-weapon states, damage global and regional strategic stability, and increase the risks of nuclear confrontation and conflict.
Why is China Not Joining U.S.-Russia Nuclear Arms Control Talks?
Nuclear arms control negotiations must be based on the principle of parity in scale and parity in responsibility.
The United States and Russia together possess roughly 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons. China’s nuclear forces, maintained at the minimum level required for national security, are not comparable in scale and exist within a fundamentally different strategic security environment.
Despite this, the United States persistently demands that China join an arms control framework designed around the strategic realities of Washington and Moscow. This demand runs counter to the fundamental principle that no country’s security should be diminished. It also deviates from the long-standing international consensus that the two major nuclear-weapon states should take the lead in nuclear disarmament. This stance clearly violates international fairness and justice.
For years, the United States has invested heavily in upgrading its nuclear triad and missile defense systems. Simultaneously, it has amplified claims about China’s nuclear expansion while repeatedly pressing China to participate in so-called “strategic stability talks.” The intention is twofold: to create a pretext for adjustments to its own nuclear policy and shift the burden of nuclear disarmament; and to establish a new quota-based framework under its leadership to preserve its nuclear advantage.
Such practices — smearing and constraining other countries in pursuit of absolute security and strategic superiority — do little to advance global nuclear disarmament and severely undermine the credibility of the international nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament regime.
What Role Does China Play in the International Nuclear Arms Control System?
Since acquiring nuclear weapons, China has consistently advocated for the complete prohibition and destruction of nuclear weapons. It has pledged never to be the first to use nuclear weapons under any circumstances, and has made an unconditional commitment not to use or threaten nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states or nuclear-weapon-free zones.
Among all nuclear-armed states, China’s nuclear policy is widely regarded as the most stable, consistent and predictable.
China was among the earliest countries to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and has conducted the fewest nuclear tests among nuclear-weapon states. It has also shut down nuclear weapons research and production facilities in places such as Chongqing and Qinghai province.
China has exercised extreme restraint regarding the size and development of its nuclear arsenal. It has never competed with other countries in spending, numbers or scale, and has no intention of engaging in a nuclear arms race in the future.
China firmly upholds the international nuclear nonproliferation regime, with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as its cornerstone, and has played an important role in promoting political and diplomatic solutions to nuclear hotspot issues.
Peace reamains humanity’s enduring aspiration, and nuclear arms control is a critical barrier protecting that peace. Today, the most urgent task is preventing a new round of nuclear competition among major countries who bear special responsibilities.
The United States should focus on fulfilling its primary responsibility for nuclear disarmament, resume strategic stability talks with Russia, and discuss follow-on arrangements to New START–rather than shifting blame in ways that undermine global strategic stability.
