发布时间：2026年2月5日，美国东部时间中午12:00 / 来源：CNN
作者：[詹妮弗·汉斯勒]，[凯莉·阿特伍德]
2小时前
俄罗斯 亚洲 中国 唐纳德·特朗普
[查看所有主题]
Facebook 推文[邮件]链接
链接已复制！
美国前总统唐纳德·特朗普（左）与俄罗斯总统弗拉基米尔·普京。
盖蒂图片社
周四，美俄之间最后一项剩余的核条约到期，引发了人们对核军备竞赛的担忧。几十年来，这两个最大的核超级大国首次在其核武库规模上没有限制。
“最糟糕的情况是局势螺旋上升，然后某个不可预见或可预见的事件触发冲突，迅速升级为核冲突，”负责军控与国际安全事务的前代理副国务卿托马斯·康特里曼表示。
尽管一些专家认为《新削减战略武器条约》（New START）的限制已过时，且对美国造成了不必要的约束，特别是考虑到中国正寻求扩大其核武库。
标志性条约的内容与背景
该具有里程碑意义的条约于2011年2月生效。它将两国部署的核弹头数量限制在1550枚；部署的洲际弹道导弹、潜射弹道导弹和可携带核武器的重型轰炸机限制在700件；“已部署和未部署”发射装置限制在800套。该条约对能够打击美国的俄罗斯洲际核武器实施了限制。
但包括美国总统唐纳德·特朗普在内的条约批评者指出，该条约未涵盖中国。根据2022年五角大楼的报告，如果中国继续以当前速度扩大核储备，到2035年其核弹头数量可能达到约1500枚。
该条约最初有效期为10年。2021年，美俄同意将其延长五年，至2026年2月4日。
该协议原本无法再次延长，但两国可以同意继续遵守条约中概述的限制。随着特朗普去年誓言美国将恢复核试验（尽管尚未有相关动向），美俄数十年来共同推进的军控工作面临严峻挑战。
去年9月，俄罗斯总统普京提议将条约再延长一年。当时，特朗普表示该提议“听起来对我来说是个好主意”。
然而，特朗普最近几周对条约到期表现出较少担忧，他告诉《纽约时报》：“如果它到期，就让它到期。我们会达成更好的协议。”
周三，国务卿马尔科·卢比奥（Marco Rubio）暗示美国不会同意维持该条约的限制，理由是特朗普呼吁美俄中三国达成核协议。
“总统过去明确表示，在21世纪要实现真正的军控，不包括中国是不可能的，因为中国的核武库规模庞大且增长迅速，”他说。
北京方面在私下和公开场合都一直拒绝三边谈判的想法。
“错误且令人遗憾”
俄罗斯外交部周三表示，他们未收到特朗普政府的回应，且美国政府的公开评论表明“我们的提议被故意搁置未回应”。
“这种做法似乎是错误且令人遗憾的，”该声明称。
外交部表示，“在当前情况下”，他们认为两国“不再受条约（包括其核心条款）的任何义务或对称声明的约束，原则上可自由选择下一步行动”。
当被问及该声明时，一位特朗普政府官员告诉CNN：“总统多次谈到要解决核武器对世界的威胁，并表示他希望对核武器保持限制并让中国参与军控谈判。”
“总统将决定核军控的前进道路，他会在自己的时间框架内明确这一点，”该官员说。
专家观点：利弊权衡
许多接受CNN采访的专家表示，让《新削减战略武器条约》的限制失效不符合美国的国家安全利益，反而应该暂时维持这些限制。
“我们不会从一场浪费且低效的军备竞赛中获益。我们不会从无法了解俄罗斯核计划动向的不可预测性和缺乏透明度中获益。我们不会从因信息缺失而可能导致的误判中获益，”前军控、威慑与稳定事务助理国务卿保罗·迪恩表示。
特朗普政府如何应对条约到期尚未确定，但前官员和专家表示，美国可能会增加核弹头数量，逆转为遵守条约而采取的削减核态势的举措。
一些专家认为，这一行动是必要的，以安抚可能倾向于自行建立核武库的盟友。
“如果人们担心俄罗斯和中国的核力量增长，那么在十年前他们已经开始扩张核武库而美国仍保持克制时，就应该感到担忧了，”战略与国际研究中心（CSIS）核问题主任希瑟·威廉姆斯说。“如果我们不展现核决心，我们的盟友会质疑美国是否会提供援助，我们是否需要发展自己的核计划。”
美国可能“落后”
但如果美国采取超出条约限制的行动，俄罗斯也可能迅速采取行动。
曾担任《新削减战略武器条约》美国首席谈判代表的罗斯·戈特莫勒表示，她认为最糟糕的情况是俄罗斯迅速增加额外核弹头，“在我们仍在试图组织行动时，而中国又在稳步重新扩张核武库，这将使我们远远落后。”
她告诉CNN，美国可能会从一年的限制延长中受益，因为“我们尚未准备好立即采取行动”。
“我们还有工作要做，需要计划和准备，”她指出，要遵守条约，需要时间来改变潜艇和轰炸机的配置。
她说，俄罗斯更有准备迅速增加导弹的核载荷：“他们拥有活跃的核弹头生产线以及导弹系统相关部件的活跃生产线，可以迅速增加核载荷。我们知道他们拥有这种工业能力，而我们没有。”
戈特莫勒还指出，一年的延长可能是特朗普的“轻松外交胜利”。她还表示，限制的延长“确实让我们有机会为应对中国做好准备”。
但也有人不同意维持现有限制的好处。
大西洋理事会斯考克罗夫特战略与安全中心副总裁兼高级主任马修·克罗尼格告诉CNN，他认为遵守限制不符合美国利益。
“理论上，有这些限制是好事，但美国核武器的主要目标是威慑核战争，而不是签订条约，”他说。
他认为，中国现在的地位与《新削减战略武器条约》谈判时已不同，现有限制不足以威慑莫斯科和北京。
“中国是一个准对等超级大国或即将成为核超级大国，因此我们现在需要制定一个既能威慑俄罗斯也能威慑中国的战略，而中国的核力量规模更大，”他说。
他援引了2023年10月由他和戈特莫勒共同参与的两党战略态势委员会的调查结果，该委员会指出“核力量的规模和构成必须考虑到俄罗斯和中国联合侵略的可能性”。
“美国的战略不应再将中国的核力量视为‘次要的附带’威胁，”委员会报告称。
“拜登政府官员公开表示，他们认真对待这一建议，并已采取所有必要步骤为增加核弹头做好准备。他们实际上并未立即行动，但表示如果特朗普政府决定朝这个方向发展，相关部门已做好准备，”克罗尼格说。
在其第一任期内，特朗普曾推动美俄中三边军控协议，特朗普政府官员在过去一年中一直努力与中国就这一问题进行接触。然而，中国始终拒绝参与可能限制其核武库增长的谈判。
过去一年中，美中之间就战略稳定进行了多轮非正式对话。一位参与这些对话的前官员告诉CNN，中国似乎更愿意参与整体讨论，尽管他们拒绝讨论其核武库规模的限制问题。
“这可能是因为中国越来越意识到，随着美俄之间所有有结构的军控协议即将崩溃，中国将置身于一个不熟悉的世界，”该前官员表示。
尽管如此，一些专家认为，在没有明确了解如何促使中国参与相关对话的情况下，放弃《新削减战略武器条约》并寻求临时协议是一个冒险举动。
“我们可能会看到俄罗斯、美国和中国之间危险的三边军备竞赛，”军控协会执行董事达里尔·金博尔表示，“但通过一些简单的常识和外交努力，这一切都可以避免或缓解。”
金博尔指出，“《新削减战略武器条约》的到期并非全球风险降低努力的首次挫折，但它在特朗普政府以破坏性方式对待国际规则和条约的背景下发生，可能成为美俄、美中无约束军备竞赛的开端，这对所有国家都是代价高昂的。”
俄罗斯 亚洲 中国 唐纳德·特朗普
[查看所有主题]
Facebook 推文[邮件]链接
链接已复制！
广告反馈
Fears of nuclear arms race rise as US-Russia treaty expires
Published Feb 5, 2026, 12:00 AM ET / Source: CNN
By
[Jennifer Hansler]
,
[Kylie Atwood]
2 hr ago
Russia Asia China Donald Trump
[See all topics]
Facebook Tweet[Email]Link
Link Copied!
US President Donald Trump, left, and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Getty Images
The expiration of the last remaining nuclear treaty between the United States and Russia on Thursday has sparked fears about a nuclear arms race, with the two biggest nuclear superpowers without limits on their arsenals for the first time in decades.
“The worst case is it spirals and then some unforeseen or foreseeable incident touches off a conflict that escalates rapidly to a nuclear conflict,” said Thomas Countryman, a former acting undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.
Though some experts argue the limitations of the New START treaty were outdated and unnecessarily constrained the US, especially when China is looking to expand its nuclear arsenal.
Ad Feedback
The landmark treaty went into force in February 2011. It capped both countries at 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads; 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers equipped to transport nuclear weapons; and 800 “deployed and non-deployed” launchers. It put limits on Russian intercontinental nuclear weapons that could reach the US.
But critics of the treaty, including President Donald Trump, pointed out it did not cover China, which is rapidly expanding its nuclear arsenal and could have some 1,500 nuclear warheads by 2035 if they continue to expand their stockpile at the current pace, according to a Pentagon report from 2022.
The treaty was originally in place for 10 years. In 2021, the US and Russia agreed to extend it for another five years, through February 4, 2026.
The agreement was not eligible to be extended again, but the two countries could agree to continue to adhere to the caps outlined in the treaty. Concerns over the future of arms control – which the US and Russia have worked on together for decades – comes as Trump also vowed last year that the US would resume nuclear testing, but there has been no movement towards that end.
Last September, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed doing so for another year. At the time, Trump said the proposal “sounds like a good idea to me.”
However, Trump in recent weeks has expressed little concern about the lapse, telling the New York Times, “If it expires, it expires. We’ll do a better agreement.”
And on Wednesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested that the US would not agree to maintain the limits of the treaty, citing Trump’s call for a nuclear deal between the US, Russia and China.
“The president has been clear in the past that in order to have true arms control in the 21st century, it’s impossible to do something that doesn’t include China because of their vast and rapidly growing stockpile,” he said.
Beijing has consistently rebuffed the idea of trilateral negotiations both privately and publicly.
‘Erroneous and regrettable’
Russia’s Foreign Ministry on Wednesday said they had received no answer from the Trump administration and that public comments from the US government indicate “that our ideas have been deliberately left unanswered.”
“This approach seems erroneous and regrettable,” the statement said.
The foreign ministry said that “in the current circumstances,” they assume the two countries “are no longer bound by any obligations or symmetrical declarations in the context of the Treaty, including its core provisions, and are in principle free to choose their next steps.”
Asked about the statement, a Trump administration official told CNN, “President Trump has spoken repeatedly of addressing the threat nuclear weapons pose to the world and indicated that he would like to keep limits on nuclear weapons and involve China in arms control talks.”
“The president will decide the path forward on nuclear arms control, which he will clarify on his own timeline,” the official said.
A Russian Yars intercontinental ballistic missile launcher rolls on Red Square during the Victory Day military parade in central Moscow on May 9, 2024.
Alexander Nemenov/AFP/Getty Images
Many experts who spoke with CNN said it is not in the US national security interest to let the limits of New START lapse and said it would instead make sense to continue them on a temporary basis.
“We do not benefit from a wasteful, inefficient arms race. We do not benefit from a lack of predictability and transparency in knowing what the Russian nuclear program is up to. We don’t benefit from potential miscommunication or miscalculation based on a lack of information,” said Paul Dean, a former assistant secretary of state for arms control, deterrence, and stability.
How the Trump administration responds to the treaty’s expiration is yet to be determined, though former officials and experts said the US may upload more nuclear warheads, reversing moves it took to pare back its posture to comply with the treaty when it was introduced.
Some experts suggest such action is needed to reassure allies who might be tempted to build their own nuclear arsenals.
“If people are worried about Russia and China building up, they should have been worried a decade ago when they were already building up their nuclear arsenals and the US was showing restraint,” said Heather Williams, a director on nuclear issues at CSIS. “If we don’t show nuclear resolve our allies will wonder will the US come to our aid, do we have to develop our own nuclear programs.”
US could be left ‘in the dust’
But rapid action by Russia is also likely if the US makes moves to expand beyond the treaty’s limits.
Rose Gottemoeller, who served as chief US negotiator for New START, said she believes the worst-case scenario is a rapid campaign carried out by Russia to upload additional nuclear warheads “that essentially leaves us in the dust while we’re still trying to get organized and the Chinese are building up steadily again.”
She told CNN that the US could benefit from a year’s extension to the limits because the country is “not immediately ready to rush into anything.”
“We’ve got work to do, to plan and prepare,” she said, noting that it would take time to undo the changes made to submarines and bombers in order to adhere to the treaty.
Russia, she said, is much better prepared to start uploading their missiles quickly.
“They have active warhead production lines as well as active production lines for other related components for their missile systems that they would be able to upload rapidly,” Gottemoeller said. “We know they have that industrial capacity available, and we do not have it.”
Gottemoeller also noted that a one-year extension could be an “easy” diplomatic win for Trump. She also said the extension of the limits “really gives us a chance to prepare right for what we need to do against the Chinese.”
But others disagree about the benefits of pursuing an extension of the existing limits.
Matthew Kroenig, vice president and senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, told CNN that he does not believe adhering to the limits is in the US interest.
“In theory, it is nice to have limitations, but the main goal of US nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear war, not to have treaties,” he said.
He said China is not in the same position that it was when New START was negotiated and the existing limits are not enough to deter both Moscow and Beijing.
“China is a near-peer superpower or will be a nuclear superpower, and so now we need a strategy to deter nuclear war with Russia and China, with China’s much larger force,” he told CNN.
He pointed to the October 2023 findings of a bipartisan strategic posture commission, on which both he and Gottemoeller served, that said the “size and composition of the nuclear force must account for the possibility of combined aggression from Russia and China.”
“U.S. strategy should no longer treat China’s nuclear forces as a ‘lesser included’ threat,” it said.
“Biden administration officials have publicly said now that they took the recommendation seriously and took all the necessary steps to prepare for an upload of additional warheads. So they didn’t actually do it, but they said that they’ve done everything that if the Trump administration decided to go in that direction, the department would be prepared,” Kroenig said.
Trump pursued a trilateral arms control agreement between the US, Russia and China during his first term, and Trump administration officials have consistently made efforts to engage China on the topic throughout the last year, according to a senior administration official. But China has consistently refused to engage in talks that could limit their growing nuclear arsenal.
Multiple track-two discussions on strategic stability between the US and China have occurred over the last year, sources familiar with the discussions said. One former official involved in those talks told CNN that China appears more open to the overall discussion, even if they refuse to broach the topic of limitations on their arsenal.
“This may be due to growing awareness that the size of their nuclear arsenal and forthcoming collapse of all structured arms control agreement between US and Russia have cast them into a world less familiar to them,” the former official said.
Still, without a clear understanding on what will bring China to the table for serious dialogue on the topic, abandoning New START and the pursuit of interim agreement is a risky move, some experts said.
“We could see a dangerous three-way arms race” between Russia, the US and China said Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, “but all of that could be avoided or mitigated with some simple common sense, diplomatic efforts.”
Although “the expiration of New START is not the first setback in global risk reduction efforts,” Kimball said, its occurrence “in the midst of the Trump administration’s kind of wrecking ball approach to international rules and treaties could be the starting point for a new kind of US-Russian and US-Chinese, unbridled, unconstrained arms race that is costly for all countries.”
Russia Asia China Donald Trump
[See all topics]
Facebook Tweet[Email]Link
Link Copied!
Ad Feedback