Changes essence: doctrinal shift

In August 2026, the Pentagon began developing a new nuclear strategy that could become the most significant change in American nuclear policy since the end of the Cold War. The initiative, supervised by the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Political Affairs, Elbridge Colby, proposes a review of the traditional doctrine that relied on massive strategic retaliation. The key innovation is the emphasis on tactical nuclear weapons (TOW) of short range and low power, intended for use in regional conflicts with Russia or China. Colby's argument: the current strategy is \"unrealistic\" for limited conflicts, as it relies solely on the threat of applying long-range strategic systems. According to him, tactical weapons will provide the president with \"realistic and reliable options,\" expanding the space for decision-making and enhancing deterrence effectiveness.

The document, according to NBC News, \"does not exclude any options for the head of state\" and is expected to be presented at a closed meeting of the Strategic Command of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Technical and operational component

The U.S. already has the necessary means to implement such a scenario. As noted by Daryl Kimball (executive director of the Arms Control Association, ACA), the Pentagon has 1800 rapidly deployable warheads, including strategic and tactical carriers, as well as at least 150 tactical bombs of at least two types — the gravity bomb B61-12 and the low-power warhead W76-2 for Trident-2 missiles.

An important addition will be the deployment of a new cruise missile with a nuclear payload (SLCM-N) for the U.S. Navy, expected by 2030. Chinese military expert Zhang Junsheng notes that Washington may equip hypersonic ground-based missiles with nuclear warheads.

According to Kimball's estimate, in the absence of treaty restrictions, the U.S. may increase the number of deployed strategic warheads by several hundred, perhaps even a thousand or more, in the coming years — for example, through reloading warheads on submarines or additional outfitting of Minuteman III ICBMs.

Criticism and risks

The main argument of the critics is uncontrolled escalation. Kimball emphasizes: \"There is no guarantee that the use of tactical nuclear weapons in a conflict against another state with nuclear weapons will remain a limited incident with a small scale.\" Any use of WMD inevitably leads to escalation and a global thermonuclear war.

A U.S. Congress representative familiar with the project told NBC: \"It is difficult to imagine an approach that is more contrary to the declared position of President Trump's 'make our nuclear deterrent great again'». According to Charter97, the interlocutor noted that Trump wanted to have more options in the field of nuclear deterrence, not fewer.

Russian expert, head of the Russian PIR Center Dmitry Trenin warned that incorporating Colby's ideas into the strategy and further deployment of TOW in Europe and Asia \"will significantly exacerbate tensions between Washington and its opponents,\" and the safety of the U.S. will be seriously undermined.

Context: the expiration of the New START and the collapse of the control architecture

The strategy is being developed against the backdrop of the expiration of the New START (February 5, 2026) — the last legally binding agreement between Russia and the U.S. limiting strategic arsenals. Russia suspended its participation in the treaty as early as 2023, and on February 4, 2026, announced that it no longer considered itself bound by its obligations.

Kimball named several reasons why the Trump administration did not respond to Putin's proposal in September 2025 to mutual compliance with New START ceilings in an interview with the PIR Center:

• IDEOLOGICAL REJECTION OF NEW START AS A \" deal between Obama and Medvedev \";
• INFORMATIONAL FORMATION OF THE NEGOTIATION TEAM IN THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE;
• ORIENTATION TO THE WHITE HOUSE WITH A NARROW CIRCLE OF ADVISERS, LACK OF TRADITIONAL INTERDEPARTMENTAL HIERARCHY;
• DESIRE TO CONCLUDE A \"NEW AND MORE COMPREHENSIVE\" AGREEMENT WITH CHINA'S PARTICIPATION.

The Chinese factor

China is designated as threat No. 1 in the new strategy. The Trump administration insists on including China in trilateral negotiations, but critics point to fundamental inequality: according to SIPRI, the U.S. and Russia account for nearly 90% of all nuclear warheads. China does not have tactical nuclear weapons and adheres to a \"no first use\" policy.

Budget and modernization

Despite Trump's contradictory statements (\"the U.S. already has too much nuclear weapons, no need to create new ones\"), budget requests for the 2026 fiscal year indicate a systemic modernization. Requests for nuclear programs of the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy have increased by approximately 26% compared to the current year. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) received \"historical\" $30 billion — an increase of 24% compared to the Biden period. At the same time, funding for non-proliferation programs is reduced by 5%.

Among the key projects are: replacing Minuteman III ICBMs with Sentinel, replacing Ohio-class SSBNs with Columbia, developing the B-21 Raider bomber and highly precise B61-12 bombs.

Conclusions for the report

1. Doctrinal shift: The U.S. is transitioning from a strategy of massive retaliation to flexible use of tactical nuclear weapons, which formally expands the president's options but lowers the threshold for the use of WMD.
2. Technical readiness: The U.S. has an arsenal and means of delivery to implement the new strategy in the short term.
3. Risks: Experts agree that any nuclear exchange in a regional conflict poses a risk of uncontrolled escalation and global war.
4. Legal vacuum: The expiration of the New START creates conditions for unlimited arms buildup (potentially +1000 warheads in the coming years).
5. Political uncertainty: The decision-making process in the Trump administration is decentralized, creating risks of unpredictability.

Permanent link to this publication: