Follow us on social

google cta
Biden-xi-scaled

How the US and China can stop their brewing arms race

Both sides can start to build trust and avoid repeating the mistakes from the onset of the Cold War.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

Last month, President Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke about the growing tensions between the two countries and how to ameliorate it. President Biden stressed the “need for common-sense guardrails to ensure that competition does not veer into conflict and to keep lines of communication open,” while President Xi noted that in order for there to be success there must be “mutual respect, peaceful co-existence and win-win cooperation.” Both presidents also expressed willingness to engage in nuclear arms discussions.

Biden and Xi are both correct. What the U.S. and Chinese governments should be focused on is increasing communication, cooperation, and ultimately, trust in order to properly address the growing tensions between the two powers. 

Instead, the solution to this problem for both Washington and Beijing has been to throw more money and resources at inflating and modernizing their nuclear arsenals. Multiple missile silo fields have been discovered across the Chinese landscape, and panic reigned supreme after China tested hypersonic missiles that were likened to a “Sputnik moment.” Meanwhile, the United States has been busy allocating endless amounts of money to upgrade its doomsday weapons, and even considering building new ones. 

During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union made the same mistake in prioritizing military buildups that did not bridge the growing divide between the two global superpowers, but rather brought the world to the brink of extinction. At that time, the arms race got so bad that there were around 68,000 nuclear weapons between them alone, and way too many nuclear close calls for anyone to be comfortable with. 

Now, the United States and China need to stop pointing fingers, bullying, and leading with hypocrisy. Washington cannot in good faith criticize China’s build-up of its nuclear arsenal without acknowledging its own multi-year nuclear weapons modernization program. It is hypocritical to complain that China is planning to build around 1,000 nuclear weapons by 2030 while ignoring the fact that the United States already has three times that amount (plus more in storage) and is upgrading them despite its commitments to work toward complete disarmament under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Meanwhile, China has to become a team player. The Chinese government cannot claim it is making productive efforts to reduce the nuclear threat when it refuses to negotiate with the United States outside of multilateral settings like the United Nations. Limiting opportunities in which Washington and Beijing can engage in productive discussions on nuclear weapons issues only serves to deepen the divide between them. China increasing its own nuclear arsenal makes it appear that it is moving away from its commitment to a No First Use policy — in addition to disregarding its own commitments to disarmament via the NPT. A public reaffirmation that China is in fact still guided by a No First Use policy would greatly help to alleviate concerns that China’s nuclear buildup is offensive, intended to threaten the United States.

Before we find ourselves again at the precipice of nuclear war (if the U.S.-China relationship continues to trend downward) we need to find alternative solutions to addressing the rising influence of China. 

This means the United States and China must do something that they are probably not too familiar with: start building trust. Prioritizing trust and confidence-building measures during the  Cold War is what allowed both sides to ease tensions and work together to produce multiple treaties and agreements. It’s what allowed Washington and Moscow to continue friendly cooperation on nuclear risk reduction and arms control efforts.

The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I and SALT II) in the 1970s led to the creation and ratification of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty which intended to curb the spiraling arms race. These talks also helped lay the foundation for engaging in additional talks that would eventually lead to New START, the sole surviving arms control treaty between the United States and Russia. Most famously, the Geneva Summit in 1985 held between President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev led to the infamous Reagen-Gorbachev principle that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,” while the Reykjavik Summit in 1986 brought the two leaders to the brink of nuclear abolition. 

Engaging in trust and confidence building measures like these is what helped to lead us out of the Cold War without a nuclear conflict. 

Today, the United States and China are following a similar path toward a Cold War-style arms race. Before we reach a point of no return, both sides should indicate they are willing to offer more than just lip service in regard to nuclear cooperation. A good place to start would be to use the strategic stability groups implemented between the United States and Russia in September to provide a setting for meaningful engagement on nuclear arms control.

The phone call between President Biden and President Xi earlier this month is progress, but there needs to be more sustained dialogue and cooperation between the two states so they can begin the trust-building measures necessary to move forward toward genuine progress. Perhaps then we can embark on a path toward the total elimination of nuclear weapons or at the very least, avoid spiraling deeper into an arms race and toward the brink of a nuclear catastrophe that no one will win.


U.S. President Joe Biden speaks virtually with Chinese leader Xi Jinping from the White House in Washington, U.S. November 15, 2021. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports
Top image credit: A large oil tanker transits the Strait of Hormuz. (Shutterstock/ Clare Louise Jackson)

Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports

QiOSK

Hours after the U.S. and Israel launched a campaign of airstrikes across Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is warning vessels in the Persian Gulf via radio that “no ship is allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz,” according to a report from Reuters.

The news suggests that Iran is ready to pull out all the stops in its response to the U.S.-Israeli barrage, which President Donald Trump says is aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. A full shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz would cause an international crisis given that 20% of the world’s oil passes through the narrow channel. Financial analysts estimate that even one day of a full blockade could cause global oil prices to double from $66 per barrel to more than $120.

keep readingShow less
Ro Khanna Jon Fetterman
Top photo credit: Ro Khanna (creative commons/WebSummitt ) and Jon Fetterman (shutterstock/EB Photos)

Fury and fanboys: US, world leaders react to US-Israeli war on Iran

QiOSK

The reactions are already coming in following the early morning attacks on Iran by U.S. and Israeli forces in what is being called "Operation Epic Fury." The reports are fluid, but as President Trump announced on his Truth Social, the U.S. is taking aim at Iran's military and senior leadership and hopes to raze both so that the Iranian people can take over. "When we are finished the government is yours to take. Your hour of freedom is at hand."

For some, like U.S. Senator Jon Fetterman, a Democrat who represents the people of Pennsylvania, this is the greatest thing to happen since the last time the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran in June. "President Trump has been willing to do what’s right and necessary to produce real peace in the region. God bless the United States, our great military, and Israel."

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.