14:00 27-01-2026

Nuclear War Risk Rises as Treaties Collapse and Conflicts Grow

Nuclear war is no longer theoretical. Thousands of warheads are on alert as arms control weakens, regional conflicts grow, and decision time shrinks to minutes.

Unfortunately, a nuclear conflict no longer looks like a purely theoretical scenario. Such a war is not planned as a goal, but it is increasingly being calculated as a plausible outcome. This shift is driven by a combination of three factors: the degradation of nuclear arms control agreements, the growth of regional conflicts, and the accelerating pace of military decision-making. In this environment, nuclear weapons are once again becoming tools of real politics rather than mere symbols of deterrence.

How Much Nuclear Weaponry Actually Exists?

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the world currently possesses around 12,100 nuclear warheads. Of these, Russia holds approximately 5,580, the United States about 5,240, China around 500, France 290, the United Kingdom 225, India 170, Pakistan 165, and Israel roughly 90 (officially unacknowledged). North Korea is estimated to have between 40 and 50 nuclear warheads.

A critical point highlighted by analysts at the Federation of American Scientists is that at least 2,000 warheads are kept at high operational readiness. These weapons can be launched immediately, without deployment procedures or extended preparation. In practical terms, they are already mounted on delivery systems and ready for instant use.

Why the Risk Is Higher Than During the Cold War?

Analysts from the Carnegie Endowment and CSIS point to a troubling paradox: despite having fewer warheads than during the 1970s and 1980s, the world is now more dangerous. During the Cold War, rigid rules, reliable communication channels, and functioning treaties constrained escalation. Today, those mechanisms are either dismantled or largely symbolic.

Agreements limiting intermediate-range missiles, conventional forces in Europe, and mutual inspection regimes are no longer effective. The last major strategic arms treaty between the United States and Russia is under serious strain. As a result, transparency has collapsed, and both sides now have a much weaker understanding of each other’s real intentions.

How Much Time Is There to Decide?

Modern early-warning systems give political leaders in nuclear-armed states between five and fifteen minutes to make a decision after detecting a missile launch. Within that window, they must confirm the data, rule out a false alarm, assess the scale of the strike, and authorize a response.

The RAND Corporation stresses that in a crisis, such a narrow time frame dramatically increases the probability of error-especially if the detected strike targets command centers, communications systems, or energy infrastructure. These are critical assets whose destruction can be interpreted as an attempt at a sudden disarming attack.

Where the Risk Is Highest?

Most analysts agree that the greatest danger of nuclear war lies in regional conflicts involving nuclear powers. Such conflicts-such as the Ukrainian one-are often perceived as «limited," which is precisely what makes them so dangerous. In these situations, nuclear weapons may be viewed as instruments of coercion, not for annihilating an opponent but for forcing an end to the war.

CSIS reports describe this pathway as one of the most likely escalation scenarios. The problem is that once nuclear weapons are used, control over the situation rapidly weakens. The response may be asymmetric, misinterpreted, or politically unavoidable.

What a Real Nuclear War Scenario Looks Like?

Modeling conducted at Princeton University indicates that a nuclear war would almost certainly begin not with strikes on cities, but with attacks on military targets-bases, airfields, and command centers. Even a so-called «limited» scenario would unfold as follows: tens of millions dead within hours; systemic collapse of healthcare and governance within days; and a sharp decline in food and energy production within weeks.

Even the exchange of a few dozen warheads would trigger massive fires, soot emissions, and long-term climatic effects. Studies cited by independent climate scientists point to the risk of rapid temperature drops and a global food crisis.

Why «Limited Nuclear War» Is a Dangerous Illusion?

Carnegie Endowment and RAND agree on one fundamental point: the idea of controlled nuclear use is a myth. Any nuclear detonation breaks the political taboo and generates immediate pressure for further action. After the first strike, the opposing side shifts into a logic of retaliation and preventing defeat. The space for negotiations collapses, while the risk of catastrophic miscalculation grows exponentially.

The Bottom Line, Without Illusions

The numbers reveal a simple reality: the world exists in a system where thousands of nuclear warheads are ready for use, and decision-makers have only minutes to act. Treaties that once reduced the risk of fatal mistakes have weakened. Conflicts are multiplying. The speed of warfare is accelerating.

Today, nuclear war is not a scenario of madness-it is a scenario of systemic failure. That is why the current phase of global politics is widely regarded as the most dangerous since the end of the Cold War.