The Pentagon is undergoing a major strategic overhaul to address the potential use of nuclear weapons in regional conflicts with Russia or China. This effort, as reported by TASS citing NBC News sources, is examining the possible application of shorter-range tactical nuclear weapons. The review is centered around minimizing the risk of a conventional conflict turning into a full-scale nuclear war, while also ensuring adversaries cannot gain an upper hand by introducing nuclear options. This approach marks a notable shift from long-standing U.S. nuclear strategy.
The Collapse of Arms Control
The absence of a successor to the New START treaty, which expired in February 2026, has left the U.S. and Russia without binding limits on strategic warheads and launchers. This vacuum has heightened fears of a new nuclear arms race. Previously, the treaty had governed the arsenals of both nations for more than 30 years. With its expiration, the Cold War-era framework that once helped manage nuclear tensions is now gone.
Russia's Shifting Nuclear Posture
In response, both countries have recalibrated their nuclear stances. In September 2024, Russia indicated a significant departure from its traditional nuclear posture, as Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov warned that Moscow might revise its nuclear-use policies in the face of what it described as Western 'escalation strategies.' This signaled a broader move toward a more assertive approach in international affairs.
A year later, in November 2024, President Vladimir Putin formalized this new stance with a decree that allowed for a nuclear response to a conventional attack that could threaten Russia's sovereignty or the security of its ally, Belarus. This marked a broader threshold than the earlier 2020 doctrine, which required a direct existential threat to the state. However, what exactly constitutes an 'existential threat' has not been clearly defined, leaving room for ambiguity and potential escalation.
China's Nuclear Expansion and Policy
At the same time, China is rapidly expanding its nuclear arsenal despite maintaining a public 'no first use' policy for decades. A white paper published in November 2025 reaffirmed this stance. Yet, according to U.S. assessments, China already has around 600 operational warheads, and projections suggest this number could rise to 1,000 by 2030. Beijing is also modernizing its systems to enable faster response times, including command and control improvements that may support a launch-on-warning capability, as reported by the Arms Control Association.
These developments have prompted a rethinking in U.S. strategic planning. In December 2025, the White House quietly published a National Security Strategy that highlighted a unipolar vision, warning of inevitable confrontations with China and Russia. The strategy emphasized U.S. global leadership and projected long-term competition with both powers. Just weeks later, in January 2026, the Department of Defense released its National Defence Strategy, titled 'Restoring Peace Through Strength for a New Golden Age of America.' This document prioritized defending the U.S. homeland and the Western Hemisphere, with a reduced focus on Russia compared to the earlier security strategy.
U.S. Strategic Response and Leadership
The lead for this review at the Pentagon is Elbridge Colby, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. The classified effort is not yet a finalized policy but represents a shift in how the U.S. thinks about nuclear deterrence and de-escalation. The objective is to maintain a strong position in any potential confrontation while actively discouraging adversaries from using nuclear weapons.
This new direction marks a major change from traditional U.S. nuclear policy. Pentagon officials see it as essential to countering the evolving nuclear strategies of Russia and China. The U.S. is now working toward a framework that emphasizes both deterrence and quick de-escalation, all while placing greater focus on homeland defense and addressing emerging regional threats.
The new doctrine, championed by Colby, is intended to increase the credibility of U.S. deterrence against Russia and China in limited-scale conflicts. According to Colby, the reduced risk of global annihilation when using low-yield warheads paradoxically deters Russia and China more effectively from nuclear blackmail at a lower level of conflict. As NBC News reports, the U.S. is reportedly seeking to increase its nuclear deterrence potential by placing greater emphasis on short-range tactical nuclear weapons.
Jakub Palowski, Deputy Editor-in-Chief of Defence24.pl, commented on the potential consequences of these doctrinal changes. 'In practice, nuclear weapons that can be considered non-strategic in the American arsenal today consist solely of B61-12 aerial bombs, carried primarily by F-35A fighters, including those operating within the Nuclear Sharing programme,' he noted. The new doctrine may signal a more flexible approach by the U.S. to the use of this type of weaponry in response to potential threats from China and Russia. Palowski emphasized that the new strategy could increase the credibility of allied deterrence from Poland's perspective, provided it is efficiently implemented by the U.S. and involves appropriate engagement on Poland's side. 'However, full implementation of this strategy would require the introduction of new delivery systems, such as adapting tactical missiles or air-to-surface missiles with a range of several hundred kilometres for nuclear use,' he concluded.
The strategy, overseen by Elbridge Colby, would place greater emphasis on shorter-range tactical nuclear weapons in the event of a regional war, rather than relying on long-range strategic missiles, The Telegraph reported. Colby has long argued in favor of tactical nuclear weapons, which are smaller, shorter-range warheads designed for battlefield use or against specific military targets rather than entire cities. He has also argued that the US' existing nuclear doctrine lacks credibility because it relies heavily on the threat of launching long-range strategic weapons capable of destroying an adversary's entire nuclear force, per The Telegraph. The Telegraph described the strategy as "marking a significant shift in US military tactics." A Chinese expert said Washington is hyping external threats to justify tactical nuclear weapons development, even though such weapons may be technically feasible, while ignoring that any nuclear use would trigger retaliation with catastrophic consequences.
"Technically, the US has the capability to develop tactical nuclear weapons across air, land and sea platforms, and could even equip land-based hypersonic cruise missiles with nuclear warheads," Zhang Junshe, a mainland military affairs expert, told the Global Times on Thursday. He added that different military branches would likely compete for funding, driving the parallel development of multiple tactical nuclear weapons programs. However, Zhang strongly rebuked the move, saying that the US shift toward normalizing and making nuclear weapons battlefield ready is highly dangerous. "The effectiveness of nuclear deterrence lies in the extremely high threshold for use and the devastating consequences involved. By deliberately lowering the nuclear threshold, the US will only undermine global nuclear stability and fuel a new arms race," Zhang said.
The proposed shift has reignited Cold War-era debates about US nuclear policy. Critics argue that placing greater emphasis on tactical nuclear weapons could lower the threshold for their use by making them appear more usable in conventional conflicts, The Telegraph reported. A senior congressional aide familiar with the proposal told NBC: "It's hard to imagine a study that is more out of line with President Trump's stated position of making our nuclear deterrent great again," according to The Telegraph.
Russia has also voiced concerns. According to Russian media outlet Kommersant, Dmitriy Trenin, president of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), said that if Colby's ideas are incorporated into the US nuclear strategy and lead to further deployment of US tactical nuclear weapons in Europe and Asia, tensions between Washington and its adversaries would significantly escalate. As a result, US security itself would be seriously undermined. "Such a nuclear strategy may sound appealing, but implementing it would be a path toward self-destruction. This reckless approach, driven by strategic ambitions and military-industrial interests, will not strengthen US deterrence credibility but will only increase the risk of global nuclear conflict and threaten world peace and security," Zhang added.