The Reykjavik Promise: How a 1986 Summit Nearly Banished Nukes—And Why That Dream Is Fading

For deeper insights on global security and diplomacy, subscribe to our daily newsletter.

REYKJAVIK, Iceland—In October 1986, against a backdrop of Cold War tension and the recent Chernobyl disaster, U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev sat down in a modest wooden house here. Their agenda was audacious: to discuss the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. For two days, the world held its breath as the two superpowers edged toward an agreement that would have aimed to abolish all strategic nuclear arms by the year 2000.

"Reykjavik was a seismic event," says Dr. Eleanor Vance, a historian of Cold War diplomacy at Georgetown University. "It transformed nuclear disarmament from a fringe ideal into a legitimate, high-stakes diplomatic goal. The fact that they got as far as they did remains astonishing."

The talks ultimately collapsed, famously stumbling over Reagan's commitment to the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), or "Star Wars." Yet, the summit was far from a failure. It directly paved the way for landmark treaties like the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), which dramatically reduced deployed warheads from tens of thousands to about 1,550 on each side.

Today, that legacy is unraveling. The INF Treaty is defunct, START I has expired, and the last remaining pact, New START, is set to lapse in 2026 with no successor in sight. Global nuclear arsenals are growing for the first time in decades, with an estimated 12,400 warheads now in existence. Experts warn the world is sliding into a complex, multi-polar arms race, driven not only by the U.S. and Russia but by China's rapid nuclear buildup and modernization programs in North Korea and Iran.

"We are consciously walking back the progress of the last 40 years," says Marcus Thorne, a former Pentagon analyst and now a senior fellow at the Global Security Institute. His tone is sharp. "The diplomatic infrastructure painstakingly built after Reykjavik is now rubble. Politicians pay lip service to disarmament while funding new, more 'usable' nuclear warheads. It's a grotesque betrayal of that 1986 moment."

Other observers urge a broader perspective. "The Reykjavik model was built for a bipolar world," notes Priya Sharma, a policy director at the Center for Arms Control. "Today's landscape includes multiple nuclear states with different threat perceptions. The solution isn't nostalgia for the 1980s, but new frameworks for dialogue and risk reduction, even amidst tension."

The human element of the 1986 summit offers a poignant contrast to today's diplomatic frost. Declassified accounts describe negotiators working through the night, a door laid across a bathtub serving as a desk. That personal commitment forged a momentum that outlasted the summit's immediate "failure."

As the 40th anniversary passes, the question is whether a new "Reykjavik moment" is possible. With major review conferences for the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons on the horizon, diplomatic channels remain open, however strained.

"The lesson of 1986 isn't that disarmament is easy," concludes Dr. Vance. "It's that political will can create unexpected openings even in the darkest times. The risk of nuclear catastrophe is not lower today than it was then. That alone should compel our leaders back to the table."

Voices from the Readers

David K., Retired Engineer, Ohio: "This article misses the point. Deterrence has kept the peace for 80 years. The world is more dangerous now; giving up our nukes would be suicide."

Anya Petrova, Graduate Student in International Relations, Moscow: "It's a balanced history. But today, with so much mistrust, a grand bargain seems impossible. We need small, practical steps on cybersecurity and communication first."

Marcus Thorne, Senior Fellow, Global Security Institute: (Quoted in article) "We're not drifting into a new arms race; we're sprinting into one. My generation inherited the promise of Reykjavik. We're leaving our children a ticking time bomb."

Priya Sharma, Policy Director, Center for Arms Control: (Quoted in article) "Doom-saying isn't helpful. The treaties born from Reykjavik saved us from tens of thousands more warheads. That proves diplomacy works. We must find the will to adapt it for a new era."