#NATOexpansion; #NATOhistory; #Warsaw Pact; #ColdWaralliances; #MikhailGorbachev; #notoneincheastward; #NATOmembershipwaves; #Europeansecurity; #RussiaNATOrelations #NATOenlargementtimeline; #ABMTreaty; #Antibalasticmissile; #MAD; #Mutuallyassusreddisstruction;
A World Caught Between Titans
“As nuclear weapons spread into more and more hands, the calculus of deterrence grows increasingly ephemeral.” — Henry Kissinger
In the nerve-rattling decades after World War II, two superpowers—the United States and the Soviet Union—stood locked in a dangerous embrace. Theirs was not a dance of friendship but a deadly tango where each step threatened annihilation.
After the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, the world understood just how thin the line between peace and devastation had become. It was clear: if no one blinked, the planet could burn. Early efforts like the Limited Test Ban Treaty (1963) and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968) tried to slow the spread of nuclear arms. But soon leaders realized that limiting the spread of weapons was not enough—they had to limit the weapons themselves.
The Birth of SALT: Negotiating with the Devil
It was President Lyndon B. Johnson who first recognized the shifting danger when the Soviets began constructing an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system around Moscow. Johnson, meeting Premier Alexei Kosygin at Glassboro in 1967, warned, “We must gain control of the ABM race.” His Secretary of Defence, Robert McNamara, called the nuclear arms race “an insane road to follow”.
The formal Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) began under Richard Nixon in 1969, stretching over two and a half years. These weren’t easy talks. The Soviets wanted to focus only on defensive ABM systems; the Americans, led by Gerard Smith, insisted that offensive weapons had to be part of the deal too. After a long deadlock, a breakthrough came on May 20, 1971, when both nations agreed to hammer out a permanent ABM treaty and temporary limits on offensive weapons.
Sealing the Deal: A Historic Breakthrough
On May 26, 1972, history was made. In Moscow, President Nixon and General Secretary Brezhnev signed two pivotal agreements:
- The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty
- The Interim Agreement on Strategic Offensive Arms
Nixon stood before the world, declaring, “We believe we have contributed to the realization of that dream… a world of peace.” Brezhnev echoed the sentiment: these agreements would “go down in history as a significant achievement in restraining the arms race”.
For the first time since World War II, the two most powerful nations on earth took real steps to slow their sprint toward destruction.
Inside the ABM Treaty: Guarding Against Overconfidence
The ABM Treaty’s purpose was deceptively simple: to maintain the terrifying balance of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). By limiting missile defences, neither side could ever feel secure enough to strike first without fearing obliteration in return.
Key provisions included:
- Limiting each nation to two ABM deployment areas (later reduced to one)
- Banning sea-, air-, space-, and mobile land-based ABM systems
- Restricting radar modernization and early-warning systems
- Allowing for modernization only within tightly controlled limits
- Establishing the Standing Consultative Commission to resolve disputes
- Giving each party the right to withdraw if “extraordinary events” jeopardized supreme national interests
For nearly three decades, the treaty worked—not because it made anyone safer, but because it kept everyone equally vulnerable.
Strains Beneath the Surface
Yet the fragile peace didn’t last. In the 1980s, the U.S. accused the Soviets of building a radar in Siberia that violated treaty terms. Meanwhile, President Reagan’s 1983 “Star Wars” program (the Strategic Defence Initiative) unnerved the Soviets, pushing the boundaries of the agreement’s intent.
After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Russia inherited the treaty—but the world had changed. The U.S. no longer faced just one nuclear adversary; missile threats from North Korea, Iran, and Iraq loomed larger in Washington’s eyes.
President George W. Bush, in December 2001, declared that the ABM Treaty “hinders our government’s ability to develop ways to protect our people” and announced U.S. withdrawal, effective mid-2002.
Russia’s Response: From Patience to Retaliation
At first, Russia’s response was measured. President Vladimir Putin called the U.S. withdrawal “a mistake” but insisted it posed no immediate threat.
Yet as the U.S. expanded its missile defences in Europe—installing interceptors in Poland and Romania—Russia grew alarmed. By 2020, Russia formally exited any remaining ABM commitments. Putin warned that the unchecked growth of U.S. missile defence risked making Russia’s nuclear deterrent obsolete: “Eventually this will result in the complete devaluation of Russia’s nuclear potential”.
In retaliation, Russia accelerated its hypersonic weapons program, developing systems designed to bypass missile defences entirely.
A New Arms Race Unleashed
With the ABM Treaty dead, the global arms race roared back to life.
The U.S. expanded its Ground-Based Midcourse Defence (GMD) system, deployed Aegis interceptors in Europe, and launched new satellite networks. Russia countered with the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle and the RS-28 Sarmat, weapons designed to smash through any U.S. shield.
China, never part of the Cold War-era treaties, dramatically increased its nuclear stockpile and hypersonic missile capabilities, reshaping the strategic landscape.
The Legacy of the ABM Treaty: A Warning from the Past
The ABM Treaty may be gone, but its lesson remains: sometimes, embracing mutual vulnerability creates more stability than the illusion of invulnerability.
For nearly 30 years, the treaty restrained one of the most destabilizing aspects of the nuclear age. Its collapse has left the world less certain, less predictable, and more dangerous.
We are now in an era of unprecedented technological acceleration, where hypersonic missiles, cyber weapons, and space-based systems threaten to outpace any existing arms control. The warning is clear: the pursuit of security through unchecked military power is a dangerous illusion.
As Henry Kissinger once cautioned, in a proliferated world, it becomes “ever more difficult to decide who is deterring whom and by what calculations.” The ABM Treaty’s story is not just history—it is a call to action, a reminder that arms control remains not a luxury, but a necessity for survival.
Interested to know more about the historic events that led to our current global turmoil, please check out my book: “Global Hegemony A Strategic Illusion”.
Why This Book Matters Now
With the world once again teetering on the edge of geopolitical rupture, this book is a must-read for scholars, diplomats, strategists—and every citizen who dares to ask, “How did we get here?”
This is your invitation to step behind the veil of power and witness how the illusion was built.
Copyright © 2025 by Bahaa Arnouk. All rights reserved. This article or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the author.
This blog should NOT be read as either an investment, political, legal or a business advice, and it only represents the author’s views (Bahaa Arnouk) and does not represent any other body or organization perspectives, and the author has no liability for any reliance or reference made to it by any third party.