News July 2, 2025

Share on

The world on the brink? Or about to escape the nuclear threat?

When the Mongols swept into Europe in the 13th century, their military superiority astonished the battle-hardened warriors of the continent. Drawing on Chinese military traditions, the Mongols wielded small, highly flexible, and precise bows that were unmatched for horseback archery. It is said they remained peerless sharpshooters even while retreating. Their arrow-making industry was superior to that of Europe and produced arrowheads for specific purposes — piercing armour, inflicting deep wounds, or even creating fear-inducing whistles. These innovations, along with strict discipline and battle-tested tactics, cemented Mongol supremacy across Asia and Europe.

At the same time, the Chinese had already begun using gunpowder, and over the centuries that followed, the combination of Mongol archery and Chinese gunpowder transformed the art of war. By the 16th century, gunpowder had become the central tool of warfare in huge parts of the world. 

Later, Europe led the world in developing increasingly deadly weapons thanks to its cultural and industrial revolutions. By the late 19th century, weapons had become so terrifying that many rulers felt invincible and desired nothing less than global dominance.

By the early 20th century, new explosives like dynamite and TNT had replaced black powder. Still, these were simply evolutions of the same technology. The age of gunpowder dominance effectively ended with the advent of nuclear weapons at the end of the Second World War. Since then, we have lived in the nuclear age. These weapons, used only twice during the U.S. wartime bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 — have become so devastating that even threatening to use them is seen as irrational, even mad. Toward the end of the 20th century, there was hope that the world might enter an era of nuclear disarmament. But today, a new nuclear crisis seems to be emerging. As the global order shifts, in part driven by the rise of China and other emerging powers, the world of war and politics feels as uncertain and frightening as the first half of the 20th century.

Fingers on nuclear buttons

After the Soviet Union collapsed, its nuclear arsenal was scattered across the new countries of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. Ukraine alone found itself with the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world: 1,700 warheads, 33 long-range nuclear bombers, and 130 intercontinental ballistic missiles. 

In December 1994, Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum with Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Under this agreement, Ukraine joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and transferred its nuclear weapons to Russia for dismantling. In exchange, the signatories pledged to respect Ukraine’s independence and borders, avoid economic coercion, and assist Ukraine via the UN Security Council in the event of aggression or nuclear threats.

Two decades later, in 2014, Russia took over Crimea from its poorer and denuclearized neighbour, while the signatories of that Budapest memorandum did little. In 2022, an emboldened Russia invaded Ukraine. While the West gave Ukraine weaponry, it wasn’t enough to defeat Russia. Ukrainian leaders blame the Budapest memorandum for its wartorn fate. In January of this year, President Volodymyr Zelensky said: “We gave up nuclear weapons and received war in return. It was a foolish and irresponsible decision.”

Since nuclear weapons entered the global battlefield, every nuclear-armed state has felt “insured” against foreign aggression. Even isolated North Korea, protected by its missiles and warheads, has created a separate reality—ignoring international law and foreign warnings. Only India and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed, occasionally clash directly, but their conflicts rarely escalate into full-scale war as in the past.

Zelensky is not wrong to trace Ukraine’s devastation back to that agreement signed in 1994. That lesson isn’t lost on others. Iran’s rulers understand that if they had nuclear weapons like North Korea, they wouldn’t now be teetering on the edge of collapse.

One must ask: Have the events of recent years merely encouraged governments to pursue nuclear weapons more aggressively, or have they revived nuclear arms races around the world?

Numerous reports and analyses about a possible nuclear crisis have been circulating in the media. In recent years, leaders and officials of nuclear-armed states have spoken far more boldly than before, invoking their nuclear buttons in international disputes. From Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin, nuclear threats have increasingly entered public discourse.

Since his first presidential campaign began in 2015, Donald Trump has repeatedly flaunted his country’s nuclear power. On April 28, 2016, he said: “I don’t want to rule out any possibilities … the use of nuclear weapons is horrible … I would be the last to use them … but I would never rule it out.” In recent months, phrases such as “nuclear bomb,” “America’s destructive power,” and “peace through strength” have once again become part of Trump’s rhetoric.

In recent years, Vladimir Putin and officials close to him have referenced the use of nuclear weapons, both directly and indirectly. For instance, on May 4, the Associated Press reported that Putin had said the war in Ukraine had not required the use of nuclear weapons, and he hoped it would not be necessary in the future either.

Exactly a month later, on June 4, Pakistan’s ambassador to Moscow, Muhammad Khalid Jamali, suggested to Russia’s RT News that Pakistan would use a “full spectrum of power” in its military conflict with India, implying the use of both conventional and nuclear force.

Nuclear investment has increased

Nuclear tensions have not been limited to diplomatic disputes and verbal threats. According to a recent report by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), the nine nuclear-armed countries spent 11 percent more in 2024 developing and expanding their nuclear arsenals than the previous year. ICAN states that the amount spent on nuclear weapons in just one year could have fed 345 million people suffering from severe hunger and famine for two years.

According to ICAN’s report, these nine countries spent a total of US$415.9 billion on nuclear weapons between 2020 and 2024. As expected, the United States spent more on its nuclear arsenal than all the other eight countries combined.

Source: ICAN Report, June 2025

Big corporations and governments fuel the nuclear industry

Major corporations and governments are working hand in hand to expand nuclear arsenals, turning this deadly industry into a highly profitable venture for investors. According to ICAN’s 2024 report, 26 major companies were awarded large contracts for the manufacturing, maintenance, and expansion of nuclear weapons. These companies currently hold active nuclear contracts worth US$463 billion. In 2024 alone, they secured new nuclear deals valued at US$20 billion.

According to ICAN, these companies made net profits of US$43.5 billion in 2024, thanks in part to those nuclear contracts in 2024. Each year, they spend large sums lobbying governments to increase nuclear investment. In 2024, these companies spent US$128 million on lobbying decision-makers in France and the United States.

Contractors’ representatives routinely meet with senior government officials and exert influence over parliaments, media outlets, and political parties. In the U.K. alone, these companies held 196 meetings with high-ranking officials last year — 18 of which took place at the office of the Prime Minister (approximately one every 20 days).

A world entangled in nuclear bombs

Officially, only nine countries in the world possess nuclear weapons — fewer than 5 percent of all nations. Yet, in reality, the world is saturated with nuclear arms as non-nuclear countries also host large stockpiles of these weapons. According to ICAN’s 2024 report, the United States has stationed nuclear weapons in five countries: Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. Russia has deployed nuclear weapons in Belarus, as well.

The governments hosting these bombs do not have to share information with their own citizens or international bodies about the presence of such weapons. In 2022, the German government stated:

“No information can be provided on the number, storage locations, transport methods, specifications of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, or on related training, exercises, and security measures.”

Nevertheless, nuclear experts know the volume of deployed weapons in these countries have been significant. ICAN’s latest report states that  the United States had deployed 7,300 nuclear warheads across European countries in 1971, at the height of the Cold War. Host nations are also home to missiles and specialized bomber aircraft. Then, there are the secretive fleets of submarines, equipped with nuclear weapons. Given this, the world is trapped in a sprawling web of nuclear weapon networks as populations live under the shadow of nuclear-armed powers from East Asia to South America.

Afghanistan is surrounded on all sides by nuclear stockpiles:

• China to the east
• India and Pakistan to the south and southwest
• Russia to the north
• Iran to the west, locked in a confrontation with Israel, the U.S., and other Western powers due to Iran’s pursuit of its own nuclear position.

The power and geographic reach of states armed with weapons of mass destruction are so vast that wherever we place our finger on the map — from the Caucasus, Central Asia, South Asia, or North Africa to the Middle East and Eastern Europe — we see the looming presence of nuclear arms.

Will humanity escape the nuclear deadlock?

Researchers say the nuclear arsenals of both Russia and the United States are each sufficient to destroy human civilization and trigger the catastrophic climate phenomenon known as “nuclear winter.” Paradoxically, this terrifying reality strengthens the hope that humanity will avoid descending into an all-out nuclear war.

However, knowing that all-out nuclear war is collective suicide, the world’s powerful nations have developed tactical nuclear warfare strategies for the limited and controlled use of nuclear weapons. In recent years, the possibility of Russia deploying tactical nuclear weapons during its war with Ukraine has repeatedly surfaced in media and military discussions.

Nuclear-armed states now possess low-yield nuclear weapons designed to destroy military targets and provide a tactical advantage on the battlefield rather than annihilating entire cities. As such, whenever Russia comes under pressure — with mounting casualties or Ukrainian forces penetrating its territory — the media speculates that Putin might resort to tactical nukes.

Among some in the world’s expanding group of nuclear powers, the use of such weapons is not as entirely taboo as it once was. According to accepted military norms, if a nuclear-armed country uses a tactical nuke against a non-nuclear state, it may not necessarily trigger a nuclear response from rival powers.

For this reason, current conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East could lead to catastrophes unseen since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. During the Second World War, global geopolitics underwent a profound transformation, and in that transformation, one power made the decisive move — dropping the bomb — to assert its dominance. Today, the world stands once again on the verge of deep geopolitical upheaval, with the struggle for power again reaching a boiling point.

The use of conventional weapons no longer seems decisive. Despite its advanced arsenal, Israel has not achieved its desired victory in Gaza. Even with cutting-edge aircraft and missiles, it has failed to eliminate the “threat of the Islamic Republic,” and if its war against Iran continues, Israel’s military authority and weaponry may erode over time. In that case, will the weary, right-wing leaders in Tel Aviv be tempted to press the button for tactical nuclear weapons?

And what about the conflict in Ukraine? How long will Russia endure this grinding war? Will there come a day when Putin orders the controlled use of his ultimate weapon?

Historically, new methods and technologies of warfare have broken geopolitical deadlocks and reset the chessboard of global conflict. Today, the world again finds itself stuck in a tactical and technological impasse.
Will we escape this deadlock through the invention of new tools and weapons?
Could cyber warfare — such as targeted software attacks, like those Israel has reportedly carried out in Lebanon and Iran — eventually replace nuclear weapons in shaping military and political outcomes?

Younus Negah is a researcher and writer from Afghanistan who is currently in exile in Turkey.

Share on