A New Red Telephone, and a New START for Russia, China and the United States

The discussion focused on reviving and modernizing Cold War-era mechanisms like the U.S.-Soviet hotline (“Red Telephone”), extending the New START treaty (expiring 2026), and proposing a new Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF)-style treaty (“New IFN Treaty”) to include China. The outcome of the panel was a unified call for urgent trilateral arms control negotiations, emphasizing that existing bilateral frameworks (e.g., U.S.-Russia) are insufficient without China’s inclusion.

The specter of nuclear conflict loomed large over a recent panel discussion on arms control and disarmament, with experts stressing the urgent need for renewed diplomatic efforts and a fundamental shift in global thinking regarding nuclear weapons. Jonathan Granoff, a leading voice for nuclear disarmament, presented a stark assessment of the current geopolitical landscape, emphasizing that these instruments of mass destruction are “inherently dangerous, usually expensive and militarily inefficient.”

Granoff, whose insights anchored much of the discussion, underscored the terrifying proximity humanity has come to nuclear catastrophe on multiple occasions. He cited former U.S. Attorney General Bobby Kennedy’s sobering reflection on the Cuban Missile Crisis: “If we get every other issue right, and we don’t get this right, it won’t matter.” He also recalled the chilling 1995 incident where Russian President Boris Yeltsin narrowly averted a potential nuclear launch due to a false alarm, a situation where Yeltsin’s personal trust in then-U.S. President Bill Clinton proved critical. Granoff highlighted that such near-misses, and the underlying reliance on individual judgment in moments of extreme crisis, are “Bozo” moments – a term he uses to describe the “intrinsically unstable, incoherent regime” of nuclear deterrence.

For Granoff, the continued existence of nuclear weapons represents a profound moral and practical failing of modernity. He passionately argued that “accepting nuclear weapons as the ultimate arbiter of conflict condemns the world to live under a dark cloud of perpetual anxiety.” The very premise of deterrence, he suggested, demands that nations institutionalize a readiness to commit acts that are “patently immoral,” such as killing “millions, millions of innocent civilians,” which he noted violates international humanitarian law.

The economic burden of maintaining these arsenals was another key point of contention. Granoff, citing research, pointed out that the global expenditure on modernizing nuclear weapons is projected to reach an astounding $1.9 trillion over the next decade. He lamented this immense allocation of resources, stating, “If it produced security, it would be worth the money. But the paradox of nuclear weapons is that the more perfected the weapon becomes, the more usable it is, the less security you get.” He highlighted that this expenditure feeds a “constituency that feeds off of the perpetuation of the risk,” diverting attention and resources from critical transnational challenges like climate change, pandemics, and poverty.

Granoff placed significant emphasis on the role of treaties as the bedrock of international security. Quoting General Lee Butler, former Commander in Chief of the US Strategic Air Command, he stated, “There’s no defense against a weapon that can destroy civilization. Our defense is law and order, and the way law and order is achieved between countries is by treaties.” He expressed concern that a “step that strengthens cooperation doesn’t get any publicity at all. It’s like a non-event because peace is not exciting. It doesn’t generate dopamine, it doesn’t generate clicks.” He strongly asserted that there is “nothing more important for our future than treaties.”

While acknowledging the challenges, Granoff believes that a universal legal prohibition on nuclear weapons is the “moral and practical litmus test of our time. We must end them, and that’s the work we have ahead of us.” He also stressed the crucial role of civil society and young people in driving this change, asserting that if the world were fully aware of the “inherent danger” of nuclear weapons, they would unequivocally reject their existence. He drew a vivid and harrowing picture of the long-term, irreversible human and environmental devastation wrought by nuclear testing, citing the birth defects and mutations witnessed in places like Semipalatinsk. He invoked Joseph Rotblat, a Nobel laureate and Manhattan Project founder who left the program, warning that building nuclear weapons would inevitably lead to their proliferation – a prediction, Granoff noted, that “tragically, he was right.”

Other panelists echoed Granoff’s sentiments regarding the gravity of the situation and the necessity of international cooperation. Christine Muttonen, Co-President of Parliamentarians for Nonproliferation and Disarmament, highlighted the “critical juncture in global history” and the unraveling of nuclear stability. She emphasized that “a disaster doesn’t respect borders. A single miscalculation could have devastating consequences for all of us.” Muttonen also underscored the importance of involving the “Global South” and parliamentarians in arms control negotiations, advocating for “more red telephones, multiple communication lines” to enhance diplomatic channels.

Thomas Countryman, Chairman of the Arms Control Association, firmly stated that “arms control works” and has significantly reduced the global nuclear arsenal from nearly 70,000 to 12,000 warheads. However, he also voiced concerns about the erosion of respect for treaties and the dangerous notion that nations might pursue nuclear weapons if existing umbrellas are withdrawn. Countryman cautioned that “nuclear weapons do not directly increase the security of the country that builds them; they make them more of a target, not less.” He concluded by noting that while the risk of nuclear war might be low, it is “never been zero in the last 80 years. And the even worse news is that it is probably higher now than at any time in your lifetimes, since 1962.”

The consensus among the panelists was clear: the path to a nuclear-free world is fraught with challenges, but the moral imperative and existential threat demand unwavering commitment. As Granoff asserted, “Anything that moves in the direction of arms control, anything that moves in the direction of lowering the salience of these weapons, anything that strengthens cooperation and trust is good.” The call to action is for sustained public engagement, diplomatic innovation, and a renewed global commitment to the treaties that form the fragile architecture of international peace.