For decades, talk of nuclear weapons was cast as a Cold War relic. Thanks to world events, however, it is no longer easy to dismiss. From the headlines to debates on Capitol Hill, the place of nuclear power in international security is back at the forefront, and the issues are more complex than ever.
The United States, which could formerly rely on a balance of deterrence and arms control, is today faced with a very different world. Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy, Dr. Vipin Narang, has called this realignment “nothing short of a new nuclear age.” His admonition regards an environment characterized by multiple adversaries modernizing their arsenals, displaying scant interest in restraint, and threatening openly to employ nuclear weapons to pursue their objectives. It is a time requiring vigilance and adjustment.
The conflict in Ukraine highlighted how weak the previous arms control structures have become. Russia’s nuclear threat, combined with its pursuit of emerging technologies, has unsettled policymakers and citizens everywhere. North Korea, even smaller in scope, continues to grow its nuclear and missile capabilities, constantly threatening the United States and its allies in Asia. These advances leave Washington with minimal illusions about collaboration and maximum incentive to update its own forces.
That updating is reflected in such programs as the Sentinel ICBM, aimed at replacing Minuteman III missiles that are reaching the end of their service lives. The ground-based portion of the nuclear triad—accompanied by submarine-launched missiles and strategic bombers—is still central to American strategy.
Each component of the triad makes calculations by adversaries that much more difficult, so no single attack would be able to destroy the country’s deterrent. Analyses of Sentinel alternatives, ranging from continuing Minuteman III to converting submarine-launched missiles, determined none would match the reliability or cost-effectiveness.
No less vital than the weapons themselves, though, is the system governing them. America is modernizing its nuclear command, control, and communications infrastructure, or NC3. These upgrades cover everything from new satellites and planes to hardened communications lines—devices designed to keep civilian leaders in touch, able to send orders, and maintain the chain of command, even amid a crisis.
Allies are also adapting. NATO has increased efforts to forestall the spread of weapons of mass destruction and to prepare against chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attacks. Its strategy combines diplomacy with military preparedness, supported by elite forces and training facilities that would direct recovery should the unthinkable happen. The goal is not merely to deter hostile states but to safeguard populations in case deterrence fails.
Though so much of the attention stays fixed on strategy and geopolitics, the personal side of nuclear policy comes all too infrequently into view. Upgrading missile silos, for example, means the surrounding communities get to live with the fact that they are at the top of target lists. Researchers like Sébastien Philippe have cautioned that these “sacrifice zones” bear the weight of national security, subjecting residents to special risks as other budgeting priorities—ranging from schools to health care—grapple for resources.
Closing the gap between scientific knowledge and public policy is another urgent challenge. Experts such as John Michael Slezak, who worked on nuclear security programs, stress the need for translating intricate technical problems into language understandable to policymakers and the public at large. Otherwise, identifying pieces of vital information will be lost in politics.
Meanwhile, the future of nuclear strategy relies on a new generation of strategists capable of solving deterrence’s technical, moral, and diplomatic challenges. Mentorship initiatives and academic fellowships are fostering this next generation of talent so that skill does not decline even as threats change on the global stage.
Ultimately, the so-called “new nuclear age” is about much more than missiles and treaties. It’s about people—those making decisions in Washington, those living near missile fields, those working to translate science into policy, and those preparing to inherit the responsibility of safeguarding global security. The choices made today will ripple for decades, shaping not only the balance of power but also the lives of ordinary citizens who may never set foot in a war room yet are deeply tied to its outcomes.