Diplomats Confront Rising Nuclear Risks at Pivotal New York Meeting

In New York City, diplomats from around the world gather this week for a critical meeting on nuclear weapons. The Third Preparatory Committee for the 2026 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, known as the NPT, brings together nations to discuss how to prevent the spread of nuclear arms and promote disarmament. Leading the U.S. delegation, Senior Bureau Official Paul Watzlavick faces a daunting task: navigating a fractured global landscape where trust is scarce and nuclear risks are rising.

The NPT, signed in 1970, is a cornerstone of global efforts to curb nuclear proliferation. It binds nearly 190 countries to a pact that promotes peaceful nuclear energy, prevents new nuclear-armed states, and commits nuclear powers to eventual disarmament. Every five years, a review conference assesses progress, with preparatory meetings like this one setting the stage. But with tensions flaring and arsenals growing, the stakes for this meeting feel higher than ever.

For many, the NPT represents hope for a safer world. Yet its promise is tested by nations expanding their nuclear capabilities and others openly defying the treaty’s rules. The outcome of these talks could shape whether diplomacy can hold the line against a new arms race or if the world slides closer to nuclear instability.

Two nations cast long shadows over the talks: Iran and North Korea. Iran’s nuclear program has surged since the U.S. exited the 2015 nuclear deal in 2018. Now enriching uranium to near-weapons-grade levels and limiting international inspections, Iran is closer than ever to a potential breakout capability. Its actions have alarmed neighbors and raised fears of a regional domino effect, where other states might pursue their own nuclear programs.

North Korea, meanwhile, has cemented its status as a nuclear-armed state. With six nuclear tests under its belt and missiles capable of reaching the U.S., Pyongyang has revised its doctrine to include preemptive nuclear strikes. Its growing ties with Russia and China further complicate efforts to bring it back to the negotiating table. Both Iran and North Korea exploit global divisions, evading sanctions and pushing the limits of the NPT’s enforcement mechanisms.

These challenges aren’t new. Iran’s nuclear ambitions date back decades, while North Korea’s program has defied diplomatic efforts since the 1990s. What’s changed is the urgency. With both nations advancing their capabilities, the talks in New York must grapple with how to restore compliance and rebuild trust in a system under strain.

As diplomats talk peace, nuclear-armed states are pouring billions into their arsenals. The U.S. alone plans to spend nearly $950 billion over the next decade upgrading its missiles, submarines, and command systems. China is rapidly expanding its stockpile, aiming for over 1,000 warheads by 2030. Russia, despite economic pressures, continues to modernize its forces, while smaller nuclear powers like India and Pakistan also bolster their capabilities.

This modernization wave raises tough questions. Proponents argue that updating aging systems ensures deterrence and prevents conflict. But critics warn that new warheads and delivery systems could destabilize the delicate balance of power, tempting nations to strike first in a crisis. The NPT’s disarmament pillar, which calls for reducing nuclear arsenals, feels increasingly distant as these investments grow.

The New York meeting will likely see heated debates over modernization. Non-nuclear states, frustrated by slow progress, argue that nuclear powers are reneging on their commitments. Meanwhile, nuclear-armed nations defend their upgrades as necessary for security in a volatile world. Finding common ground will test the diplomatic skill of all involved.

The backdrop to these talks is a world divided. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its suspension of the New START treaty, the last major U.S.-Russia arms control agreement, have gutted decades of cooperation. Set to expire in 2026, New START’s collapse could unleash unrestrained nuclear competition. Other treaties, like those banning intermediate-range missiles, have already crumbled, leaving fewer checks on escalation.

Beyond U.S.-Russia tensions, China’s rising power and deepening alliances with Russia and North Korea add complexity. Regional rivalries, from the Middle East to South Asia, further erode the trust needed for meaningful agreements. Without transparency or verification, the risk of miscalculation grows, where a single misstep could spiral into catastrophe.

Diplomats at the PrepCom will push for confidence-building measures, like better communication channels or limits on provocative military exercises. But with major powers at odds, even small steps feel like climbing a mountain. The talks must balance immediate security needs with the long-term goal of a world less reliant on nuclear threats.

Amid the gloom, some see opportunity. Advocates for disarmament, including many non-nuclear states and civil society groups, are rallying behind the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, a 2017 pact that bans nuclear weapons outright. With 93 signatories, it’s gaining momentum, though no nuclear-armed state has joined. Supporters argue it sets a moral benchmark, pressuring nuclear powers to act.

These voices point to past successes: South Africa’s voluntary disarmament in the 1990s and the reduction of U.S. and Russian arsenals after the Cold War. They argue that diplomacy, backed by strong verification, can work. Yet nuclear powers counter that deterrence remains essential in a world of unpredictable threats, and unilateral disarmament is a nonstarter.

The New York talks will be a battleground for these perspectives. Non-nuclear states will demand concrete disarmament steps, while nuclear powers will stress nonproliferation and security. Bridging this divide requires creativity and compromise, qualities in short supply in today’s polarized climate.

The outcome of this week’s meeting won’t resolve the world’s nuclear challenges, but it will set the tone for the 2026 Review Conference. A failure to find common ground could weaken the NPT’s credibility, emboldening states to skirt its rules or seek their own nuclear deterrents. Success, even in small measures, could rebuild momentum for diplomacy and reduce the risk of conflict.

For ordinary people, the stakes are tangible. Nuclear proliferation raises the specter of regional wars, economic disruption, and humanitarian crises. A renewed commitment to the NPT could stabilize volatile regions, free up resources for development, and lower the ever-present threat of nuclear catastrophe. As diplomats gather in New York, the world watches, hoping for progress in a time of uncertainty.