Why did SALT I and SALT II stabilize the nuclear arms race without greatly reducing nuclear arsenals?

The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I and SALT II) stabilized the nuclear arms race by establishing a framework of mutual deterrence rather than through disarmament. These agreements aimed to manage the competition between the United States and the Soviet Union by confirming parity in destructive power and preventing technological breakthroughs that might encourage a first strike.123

The agreements failed to significantly reduce nuclear arsenals for several reasons:

• Focus on Limitation, Not Reduction: The primary objective was to restrain the buildup of strategic launchers and regulate antiballistic missiles (ABMs) to ensure both sides remained vulnerable to retaliation, thereby upholding the strategy of mutually assured destruction.13
• Technological Loopholes: The treaties did not ban the development of new technologies, such as multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs), cruise missiles, or space-based weapons. This allowed both superpowers to continue upgrading their offensive capabilities within the agreed-upon limits.43
• High Force Levels: The agreements were negotiated at very high force levels, permitting each side to maintain an offensive capacity far exceeding what was necessary to destroy the other as an industrial state.3
• Asymmetry: Differences in strategic doctrine—with the Soviets favoring large warheads and the U.S. prioritizing accuracy—made it difficult to negotiate deep cuts, leading to complex agreements that focused on controlled increases rather than reductions.12