- World’s Nuclear Powers Spend Record US$119 Billion Amid Rising Geopolitical Tensions
Global spending on nuclear weapons reached a record US$119 billion in 2025, underscoring fears that the world is entering a new and more dangerous era of nuclear competition.
According to a new report by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, the world’s nine nuclear-armed states collectively increased expenditure on their nuclear arsenals by US$16.8 billion compared with the previous year.
The figure marks the highest level recorded since ICAN began tracking nuclear weapons expenditure and comes at a time of worsening geopolitical tensions, weakening arms control systems and intensifying rivalry among major military powers.
The United States remained by far the largest spender, allocating an estimated US$69.2 billion to its nuclear programme in 2025. That was more than the combined spending of all other nuclear-armed countries.
China followed with US$13.5 billion, while the United Kingdom spent US$12.6 billion. Russia and France recorded estimated nuclear weapons spending of US$9.5 billion and US$7.7 billion, respectively.
Other nuclear-armed states, including India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, also continued to invest in the maintenance, expansion or modernisation of their nuclear capabilities.
The rise in expenditure reflects a growing shift in global security thinking, where nuclear deterrence is again being treated by governments as a central pillar of national defence strategy.
The renewed investment comes against a backdrop of prolonged conflict in Eastern Europe, deepening instability in the Middle East, rising strategic competition between the United States and China, and growing concerns over the weakening of international arms control frameworks.
For arms control advocates, the numbers are alarming.
They suggest that nuclear powers are no longer merely maintaining old arsenals. They are upgrading delivery systems, improving warhead capabilities, expanding infrastructure and preparing for a more confrontational global order.
Separate findings from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute also warned that nuclear powers are modernising and expanding their arsenals at a pace that could reverse decades of disarmament progress.
SIPRI’s warning reinforces a broader concern that the post-Cold War assumption of gradual nuclear restraint is giving way to a new era of strategic competition.
Analysts say governments are increasingly prioritising military preparedness as security alliances shift, regional rivalries deepen and global institutions struggle to manage conflict.
In that environment, nuclear weapons are being presented by some states as ultimate insurance against external threats.
But campaigners argue that this logic is taking the world in a dangerous direction.
ICAN criticised the rising expenditure, saying the billions of dollars devoted to nuclear weapons could instead be used to address urgent global challenges, including healthcare, climate resilience, education, poverty reduction and economic development.
The organisation also raised concerns about the role of private defence contractors and weapons manufacturers that benefit financially from expanded nuclear weapons programmes.
Campaigners are calling for greater transparency and accountability in nuclear weapons spending, arguing that citizens have a right to know how much public money is being channelled into weapons systems capable of catastrophic destruction.
The scale of spending raises a moral and strategic question: what does security mean in a world where governments can find US$119 billion for nuclear weapons while many countries struggle to finance healthcare systems, food security, climate adaptation and basic infrastructure?
The answer depends on where one sits.
For nuclear-armed states, the expenditure is often defended as necessary deterrence in a dangerous world. For disarmament advocates, it is evidence of misplaced priorities and a failure of global leadership.
What is clear is that nuclear weapons have returned to the centre of international security debate.
The war in Ukraine, tensions around Taiwan, instability in the Middle East and the collapse or weakening of key arms control agreements have all contributed to a climate in which nuclear risk is no longer treated as remote.
Even if nuclear weapons are never used, their modernisation carries enormous political and economic consequences.
It diverts public funds, entrenches military rivalry, increases mistrust among states and raises the possibility of miscalculation during crises.
The new figures from ICAN therefore point to more than a spending trend. They reveal a deeper shift in the global security order.
The world’s most powerful states are preparing for an era in which nuclear deterrence, strategic rivalry and military readiness are becoming more prominent than cooperation, arms control and disarmament.
For smaller and non-nuclear states, the implications are profound.
They face a global environment shaped by weapons they do not control, decisions they do not make, and risks that could still affect them directly through conflict, economic disruption, humanitarian crisis or environmental fallout.
The record US$119 billion nuclear weapons bill is therefore not only a matter for Washington, Beijing, Moscow, London or Paris.
It is a warning to the world.
At a time when development needs are rising and global trust is weakening, nuclear-armed states are spending more than ever on weapons that, if used, could make development itself meaningless.
The renewed nuclear spending race suggests that the world is not moving away from the logic of mutually assured destruction.
It may be walking back toward it.
