Shifting superpower strategies? The probable hidden realities of global nuclear politics. Are superpowers rethinking their arms race?

By Jean Baptiste Ndabananiye

For decades, the United States of America (USA) has positioned herself as a leading nuclear superpower, shaping global order through its arsenal. In its 29 March 2024 story entitled “Estimated Global Nuclear Warhead Inventories, 2024”, the Federation of American Scientists recounts “Despite progress in reducing nuclear weapon arsenals since the Cold War, the world’s combined inventory of nuclear warheads remains at a very high level: nine countries possessed roughly 12,121 warheads as of early-2024.

Combined, the United States and Russia now possess approximately 88 percent of the world’s total inventory of nuclear weapons, and 84 percent of the stockpiled warheads available for use by the military. Of the world’s approximate 12,121 nuclear warheads, roughly 9,585 are in the military stockpiles for use by missiles, aircraft, ships and submarines.  The remaining warheads have been retired but are still relatively intact and are awaiting dismantlement.”

As shown by the above image, Russia owns the most nuclear weapons—with 5580 nuclear arms, while this country is followed by the US—with 5044 ones. The arms race is still ongoing. Yet, the USA’s President Donald Trump has signaled concerns over the financial burden of an arms race with Russia and China, hinting at the need to balance military power with economic stability. As a result, he wants US talks with Russia and China, to achieve denuclearization—a deal which the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has maximally welcomed. Could this just constitute a diplomatic proposal, or a seismic shift in global power dynamics, one that suggests a broader transformation far beyond nuclear weapons?

At its core, this series of articles asks:

• Is Trump’s proposal really about reducing nuclear weapons, or  a strategic admission that the US is losing ground and must shift its focus to where it holds an advantage?
• Does this mark the beginning of the end of America’s nuclear dominance, or the dawn of a new arms race—one fought in cyberspace, outer space, and economic warfare?
• And most disturbingly—are we walking into an era that was predicted long ago?

Throughout history, prophecies have been dismissed as superstition—until reality eerily aligns with their warnings. For instance, in 1968, a late Norwegian senior woman reportedly claimed to have seen a vision of the world inching toward a third global war from an unexpected location. Today, we are witnessing changes that strangely resemble her warning, if she has really received the vision or revelation that they attribute to her.

She reportedly said “Before the Third World War breaks out there will be a ‘détente’ like we have never had before. There will be peace between the super powers in the east and the west, and there will be a long peace. In this period of peace there will be disarmament in many countries, also in Norway and we are not prepared when it (the war) comes. The Third World War will begin in a way no one would have anticipated – and from an unexpected place.” She reportedly claimed that the war would be preceded by an unprecedented peace period and good relations among the superpowers, while the time (1968) when she reportedly gave the prophecy, the cold war was peaking.

The Cold War was a period of intense geopolitical tension and rivalry between two major superpowers: the United States and the Soviet Union as well as their respective allies, lasting roughly from 1947 to 1991. It was characterized by political, military, and ideological conflict, but it did not escalate into a full-scale direct military confrontation between the two superpowers.

The term used to describe the period of relative global stability since the end of World War II is Long Peace; which perfectly matches what the late senior woman is said to have predicted, saying “There will be a long peace.” The Harvard Gazette is the official news website of Harvard University. On March 30, 2012 it released a story “Pinker explains ‘The Long Peace‘”. In this strory, the Harvard Psychologist Steven Pinker said “Violence has been in decline for long stretches of time, and today may be the most peaceful era in our species’ history.”

Pinker, the Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology and Harvard College Professor, said that we’re actually in a period referred to by scholars as “The Long Peace,” which—according to The Harvard Gazette— started at the end of World War II, and is marked by the absence of war among the world’s great powers.

While this series will first focus on the aspect of nuclear strategy, we will return to these prophecies at the end—not as an endorsement of supernatural foresight, but as a lens through which to reflect on the patterns of history, the cycles of conflict, and humanity’s tendency to ignore the signs of its own undoing.

The President Trump has always declared that he will ensure that the third world war is avoided, through improving the USA’s diplomatic relations with Russia, among others.  If he is truly serious about this commitment, his willingness to engage in talks with both Russia and China could be seen as his effort to maximize the chances of preventing such a conflict—especially since these three nations are often cited as the key instigators of a potential global war. However, some warn that European great powers such as France, the United Kingdom, and Germany as well as other nuclear powers like North Korea cannot be overlooked. 

“The sharing of nuclear weapons is an issue we need to talk about. We should talk with both countries [France and Britain] always, and in addition, from the perspective of supplementing the American nuclear shield, which we of course want to see maintained. We have to be stronger together in nuclear deterrence,” said Germany’s chancellor-to-be, Friedrich Merz, according to The Guardian in its 9 March 2025 story headlined “Germany to reach out to France and UK over sharing of nuclear weapons”.

Before we revisit the chilling visions or prophecies, we must first understand the forces shaping this new global arms race through these articles which compose this series:

1. The US proposing denuclearization, is it really admitting defeat? A rare moment of strategic humility, if so.

• How unusual is it for a US leader to admit military and financial limitations?
• Is this a real pivot to diplomacy, or a strategic withdrawal to focus on new types of warfare?
• What does this mean for America’s global dominance?

2. Financial apocalypse behind America’s Defense Strategy ?

• Is the US admitting it can’t afford an arms race—what does this mean for its economy?
• What’s the balance between military spending versus domestic needs?
• Could economic instability lead to a shift in US foreign policy?

3. From nukes to space wars—Trump’s “Golden Dome” Strategy?

• Is space-based defense the next arms race?
• Could SDI 2.0 bypass traditional arms control treaties?
• What does this mean for China and Russia’s counter-strategies?

4. Russia & China’s nuclear unity: a deeper strategic partnership?

• Are Moscow and Beijing moving toward joint military planning?
• What does this mean for US influence in Asia and Europe?
• Could India, North Korea, Pakistan, or other nuclear players change their strategies?

5. The Silent Players: France, Britain, and Overlooked Nuclear Powers

• Why is Russia insisting on counting France and the UK?
• Would European nuclear powers gain more influence in global security talks?
• How could this impact NATO unity and European defense strategy?

6. Africa and the Global South: why non-nuclear nations should care

• How do shifts in nuclear strategy affect Africa and other non-nuclear regions?
• Could this moment be used to push for global disarmament efforts?
• How would emerging military alliances react to these changes?

7. Prophecies and patterns of history—  have we ignored them?

As already explained, at the end of this series, we will come back to the eerie 1968 prophecy—not as a piece of superstition, but as a chilling historical parallel. Are today’s geopolitical events aligning with patterns long warned about? Has history already mapped out the road we are now walking?

Other prophecies – such as that of Nostradamus and surveys as well as modern geopolitical analysts who predict a new form of warfare will also be objectively explored in this series. Before dismissing prophecies, we must ask: if history keeps repeating itself, is it human nature refusing to learn or any other reason behind?

For now, we begin with the most immediate question: Is the US really admitting defeat, or merely rewriting the rules of global power in another way?

Sputnik News is a Russian state-owned news agency and radio broadcaster. It ran a story “Trump Floats Denuclearization Since US Can’t Win Arms Race With Russia, China Without Going Bankrupt” on 8 March 2025. “President Donald Trump has floated [suggested] trilateral US-Russia-China talks on cuts to strategic nuclear weapons stockpiles.”

This media house continues, relating that it has  interviewed Dmitry Suslov— one of Russia’s “foremost experts” on strategic security issues, to discuss the reason behind the proposal and its chances to succeed. This deputy-director of research at the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy told Sputnik News “Nuclear weapons are precisely one of the areas where competitors outpacing the United States is very visible.

Chinese and Russian nuclear arsenals combined provide two times preponderance over the United States, or will make two times preponderance in the observable future,” stressed Suslov, before adding that nuclear talks instead represent the alternative for the US to bankruptcy stemming from “high defense spending and unsustainable debt, particularly as the US nuclear arsenal is stuck in the 80s and lags far behind competitors, especially Russia, and would take immense resources to modernize.”

How unusual is it for a US leader to admit military and financial limitations?

The Arms Control Association,established in 1971, constitutes a national (USA) “nonpartisan” membership organization “dedicated” to promoting public understanding of and support for effective arms control policies.

In its March 2025 story headlined “Making Sense of Trump’s Talk of ‘Denuclearization’”, it echoes the issue of high expenditure on nuclear weapons. “At the same time, a dialogue between Moscow and Washington could lead to negotiations to maintain or lower current limits on the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals before the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) expires in February 2026.”

“In January, Trump expressed support for nuclear talks with China and Russia in terms not uttered by a Republican politician in recent memory.” “In response to a question about China-U.S. relations”, he said “Tremendous amounts of money are being spent on nuclear, and the destructive capability is something that we don’t even want to talk about …. So, we want to see if we can denuclearize, and I think that’s very possible.”

This quote from the association’s December 2024 story titled “Trump, the United States and the New Nuclear Arms Race” helps us to understand the USA’s spending on these arms of massive destruction. “The United States has led the charge in this new nuclear arms race, dedicating $1.7 trillion to its nuclear arsenal over the next 30 years, or roughly $75 billion a year between fiscal years 2023 and 2032, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

To put that figure into context, adjusted for inflation to 2023 dollars, the four years of the Manhattan Project cost approximately $30 billion, while all eight years of President Ronald Reagan’s nuclear buildup cost about $75 billion. That means that Washington currently is spending twice as much a year on nuclear weapons as it did during all four years of the nuclear weapons development during World War II and the same amount as during all eight years of the last major nuclear spending drive of the Cold War.”

This association with its March 2025 story further says that the Kremlin has replied that it wants to resume the nuclear dialogue “as soon as possible.”

Despite widespread expectations that Trump’s second term would escalate the nuclear arms race, his stance has paradoxically leaned toward denuclearization. His first-term rhetoric and policies signaled a more aggressive nuclear posture, including the development of new low-yield nuclear weapons. However, he has now expressed interest in striking unprecedented arms control deals with Russia and China. This contradiction between hawkish nuclear expansion and his stated desire to reduce global stockpiles adds complexity to his nuclear strategy.

The Arms Control Association in its December 2024 story already mentioned stated “Donald Trump’s election to a second presidential term is likely to stoke this new nuclear arms race even further. During his first term, President Trump’s agenda was a paradigm shift from how nearly all his predecessors acted in regard to the U.S. nuclear arsenal.”

It adds that the way Trump talked about nuclear weapons, supposedly asking at one point “if we have these weapons, why can’t I use them [?]” and threatening North Korea with “fire and fury like the world has ever seen,” shocked many people.

“The development of new and more usable nonstrategic nuclear weapons such as the W76-2 warhead, which is deployed on Navy submarines, and the nuclear-armed submarine-launched cruise missile, which is still under development, signaled that the United States might turn away from Reagan’s declaration that ‘a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought’ and instead could see a use for a ‘limited’ nuclear strike and war-fighting strategy.

There is real cause for concern that the United States will continue to commit itself to an expanded role for nuclear weapons in its military and foreign policy. Congressional leaders, military commanders, and former Trump administration officials are campaigning for new nuclear weapons and funding above the current $1.7 trillion nuclear modernization program.”

The Lowy Institute was founded in April 2003 by Frank Lowy AC, one of Australia’s leading businessmen and philanthropists. Lowy Institute is said to be Australia’s leading think-tank providing high-quality research and distinctive perspectives on international trends shaping Australia and the world. In its 4 February 2025 piece— of writing title “Trump and the Nuclear Order”— which highlighted that the impact of the President’s second term on the global nuclear order is profoundly negative  also raised the same issue. “Donald Trump’s comeback to the White House poses a substantial challenge to the global nuclear order. His previous administration had contempt for arms control agreements.”

It added “The United States’ exit from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty removed a vital guardrail to nuclear escalation in Europe. This move, while deemed legitimate by the US in reaction to Russian transgressions of the Treaty, considerably weakened the international framework for arms control.

Moreover, the hesitance of his first administration to prolong New START, the last existing nuclear weapons limitation treaty between the US and Russia, nearly led to its rupture prior to the Biden administration obtaining a five-year extension. This reluctance originated from Trump’s insistence on including China in future arms control talks.”

It cannot however sound unusual or unprecedented for a US leader to acknowledge financial constraints induced by excessive military expenditure or strike a deal designed to address the issue of nuclear arms.

The former President, the late Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961), warned against excessive military spending in his famous military-industrial complex speech. According to National Archives, on January 17, 1961, in his farewell address, Eisenhower cautioned against the establishment of a military-industrial complex. “In a speech of less than 10 minutes, on January 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower delivered his political farewell to the American people on national television from the Oval Office of the White House.

Those who expected the military leader and hero of World War II to depart his Presidency with a nostalgic, ‘old soldier’ speech like Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s, were surprised at his strong warnings about the dangers of the ‘military-industrial complex’.”

He declared “My fellow Americans:

Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor. This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. ”

The former President Barrack Obama (2009-2017) advocated for arms reduction and signed the New START treaty with Russia.

Is this a real pivot to diplomacy, or a strategic withdrawal to focus on new types of warfare?

Instead, Trump “wants to channel competition into some other areas, into the areas where the United States largely have advantages,” according to Suslov, from high-precision conventional arms to his “Golden Dome” proposal for a space-based SDI 2.0.

The expert emphasizes “This is an attempt to reduce competition in the area where the United States is not competitive and to channel the competition into the areas where the United States is competitive, has comparative advantages, technological advantages, in the opinion of the Trump administration.”

Nonetheless, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists— a non-profit organization that has always warned against human extinction due to the use of nuclear weapons, among other very dangerous threats to humanity today— has saluted the President Trump’s statement.

In its February 24, 2025 story entitled “What Trump got right about nuclear weapons—and how to step back from the brink”, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists stresses “President Donald Trump’s recent remarks about nuclear weapons are 100-percent correct.”

This subject remains open, and we will return to it in greater detail in our next article within this beat. Whether Trump’s approach marks a real pivot to diplomacy or a strategic shift toward new forms of warfare is a question that demands closer examination. As we continue our analysis, we will explore the implications of this shift and its potential consequences on global security.