Nuclear Testing Resumes Under Trump

The New Atomic Gamble: A World on Edge as the Nuclear Testing Taboo Teeters

A call to shatter a three-decade global understanding on atomic armaments has sent shockwaves through the international community. Donald Trump’s directive for America to get ready to restart nuclear trials threatens to dismantle a fragile peace. This move would reverse a long-standing moratorium observed by major powers. It risks plunging the world into a new, unpredictable arms race. The decision ignites fears of a return to the atmospheric and underground detonations that were a hallmark of the Cold War era. Global leaders and arms control experts now watch anxiously, weighing the catastrophic potential of such a policy reversal. The delicate balance of deterrence that has held for generations now appears profoundly vulnerable.

A Justification Rooted in Competition

The rationale offered for this seismic policy shift centres on the activities of global rivals. Trump argued that America could not afford to stand idle while other nations advanced their own military programmes. He identified Russia and China as nations whose actions necessitated a proportional American response. The command given to the Department of War was to get ready for trials on a comparable footing. This framing suggests a competitive approach to nuclear strategy, viewing the moratorium not as a tool for stability but as a unilateral constraint. The announcement was strategically timed, delivered via social media just ahead of a high-stakes discussion with Xi Jinping, the President of China, maximising its diplomatic impact.

Russia’s Provocative Advancements

Moscow has been actively developing a new generation of strategic weapons, adding weight to arguments for a renewed American testing programme. Among these is the Poseidon, a submersible drone that can carry an atomic warhead to coastal cities. The Kremlin also boasts of the Burevestnik, a nuclear-powered cruise missile with a theoretical range that makes it invulnerable to conventional interception methods. While Russia insists that recent trials of these systems did not include the detonation of atomic devices, the development itself signals a clear strategic intent. These weapons are designed to circumvent existing American defence systems, thereby challenging the strategic status quo and prompting calls for a more robust US nuclear posture.

China’s Quiet Nuclear Expansion

Simultaneously, China is undergoing a dramatic and rapid build-up of its atomic capabilities, a development that deeply concerns military planners in Washington. For decades, Beijing maintained a doctrine of minimum deterrence, but that policy appears to be shifting. Data from the Federation of American Scientists indicates a significant increase in China's warhead count, with estimates suggesting its stockpile could exceed 1,000 by 2030. This build-up includes the construction of numerous new missile silos. The secrecy surrounding its programme and its refusal to engage in trilateral arms control talks with the US and Russia have only amplified international anxieties, making China a central figure in the debate over testing.

The International Response

The global reaction to the prospect of renewed US testing has been swift and overwhelmingly negative. The Kremlin issued a pointed reminder of its own position, with Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesperson, reaffirming President Putin's oft-repeated stance. He stated that if any nation were to depart from the testing moratorium, Russia would feel free to act accordingly. This statement implies a direct tit-for-tat response that might set off a cascade of tests. China also urged caution, calling on America to uphold its duties specified in the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). The message from both rivals was clear: trials conducted by Washington would not happen in a vacuum.

A Dissenting Chorus of Allies

Concerns were not limited to adversarial nations; key American allies also expressed deep reservations. European leaders, long proponents of arms control and de-escalation, viewed the move as a dangerous step backward. The potential for a renewed arms race on their continent, reminiscent of the Cold War's darkest days, is a source of profound unease. Allies in the Asia-Pacific region, who live under the shadow of North Korea's nuclear ambitions and China's growing military might, fear that US testing would legitimise further proliferation. It could undermine the very non-proliferation treaty that has been a cornerstone of global security for over half a century, leaving them in a more precarious position.

The Numbers Game: A Global Stocktake

While Trump asserted that America possessed the largest nuclear arsenal, publicly available data suggests a more nuanced picture. Data from the Federation of American Scientists shows Russia holds a slight lead with approximately 5,580 total warheads compared to America's 5,225. These figures include deployed, reserved, and retired warheads awaiting dismantlement. China lags far behind with an estimated 600, though this number is rising fast. Other declared atomic powers include France (holding 290), the UK with 225, Pakistan with 170, and India with 180. Undeclared states like Israel are believed to possess roughly 90, while North Korea's arsenal is estimated at about 50 warheads.

The Slow Death of Arms Control

This debate unfolds against the backdrop of a decaying global arms control architecture. The New START accord, which is the final major pact limiting US and Russian deployed strategic nuclear warheads, hangs by a thread. In 2023, Russia suspended its participation in the treaty's verification mechanisms, citing American hostility over the conflict in Ukraine. The agreement is due to lapse in February of 2026, and with no replacement being negotiated, the world faces the prospect of unconstrained nuclear competition between its two largest atomic powers, a situation not seen since the 1970s. The potential resumption of testing would be another nail in the coffin of cooperative arms limitation.

A Treaty Signed but Never Ratified

The 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) is central to the worldwide prohibition on testing. The treaty aimed to make the de facto moratorium legally binding and permanent. However, it has never formally entered into force because it requires ratification by 44 specific nuclear-capable states. Eight of these, America among them, along with China, Israel, and Iran, have yet to ratify it. A US decision to resume explosive testing would not technically violate a fully ratified treaty, but it would shatter the powerful international norm that the CTBT has established over decades. Such an act could render the treaty obsolete and encourage other hold-out nations to pursue their own testing ambitions.

The Last Echo of an American Bomb

America has refrained from carrying out a live atomic test detonation after 23 September 1992. The final trial, codenamed Divider, took place deep beneath the Nevada desert. It involved a device with a yield of less than 20 kilotons, roughly equivalent to the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. This event was the 1,054th and concluding trial performed by America since the dawn of the atomic age in 1945. It marked the end of an era. The halt, first put in place by President George H.W. Bush, was seen as a major step away from the brinkmanship of the Cold War, a recognition that the arms race had reached a point of diminishing and dangerous returns.

Waking a Sleeping Giant: The Nevada Test Site

The well-known Nevada Test Site, a sprawling expanse of desert 65 miles to the north of Las Vegas, is still under government control. It is a silent monument to the atomic age, its landscape scarred by decades of underground and atmospheric detonations. While dormant, the facility is not decommissioned. Information from the National Museum of Nuclear Science and History indicates that the site could receive authorisation for testing again if it were judged to be essential. However, experts caution that this would be a complex and time-consuming undertaking. Reactivating the site for a full-scale underground nuclear explosion would require significant investment, technical preparation, and a lead time of at least three years to ensure safety and data collection capabilities.

Science Without Explosions

A key question raised by critics is whether explosive tests are even scientifically necessary in the 21st century. Since the 1992 moratorium, America has depended on its Stockpile Stewardship Program to ensure the safety and reliability of its atomic stockpile. This programme uses sophisticated alternatives to live detonations. It employs supercomputer simulations, advanced physics modelling, and subcritical experiments. These experiments use chemical explosives to test nuclear materials under extreme pressures, stopping just short of creating a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction. Proponents of this method argue that it provides all the necessary data to maintain the stockpile without the environmental and geopolitical fallout of a full-scale test.

Domestic Opposition and Political Fallout

The plan to restart trials immediately drew fierce domestic opposition. Dina Titus, a Representative whose electoral area covers the Nevada Test Site, vowed to introduce legislation to block any such move. She reflected the sentiment of many Nevadans who are wary of their state once again becoming a ground zero for nuclear detonations, citing health and environmental concerns that have lingered for decades. Arms control advocates were equally scathing in their criticism. The head of the Arms Control Association, Daryl Kimball, described the idea as profoundly misinformed. He argued there was no technical or military justification for a resumption of testing.

The Risk of a Domino Effect

Arms control experts warn that the most dangerous consequence of a renewed US test would be the chain reaction it might set off globally. A decision by Washington to abandon the moratorium would provide political cover for other nations to follow suit. It could embolden countries like India and Pakistan, which have observed their own moratoriums since their 1998 tests, to restart their programmes. More alarmingly, it could push nations on the nuclear threshold, such as Iran, to pursue a tested weapon capability. Such a scenario would unravel the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the cornerstone of global efforts to prevent atomic arms from spreading, leading to a far more dangerous and unstable world.

Echoes of Trinity: The Dawn of the Atomic Age

Any discussion of atomic trials inevitably brings to mind its grim origins. The first-ever atomic bomb was detonated on 16 July 1945, in the New Mexico desert. The test, codenamed Trinity, unleashed a power previously unknown to humanity, forever changing the nature of warfare and international relations. The scientists of the Manhattan Project watched in a mixture of awe and terror as the mushroom cloud ascended into the dawn sky. This single event marked humanity's entry into the atomic age, setting the stage for the arms race that would define the next half-century and creating a destructive legacy that continues to haunt global politics to this day.

The Unthinkable Precedent: Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Following the Trinity detonation, the world witnessed the horrific application of this new power. America is still the sole nation that has ever deployed atomic armaments in conflict, unleashing atomic bombs over Hiroshima and also Nagasaki, two Japanese cities, in that year's August. The attacks caused unprecedented devastation, killing an estimated 140,000 people in Hiroshima, with Nagasaki losing 74,000 people. Many victims were incinerated instantly, while thousands more died in the following weeks and months from severe burns and radiation sickness. These events provided a terrifying, real-world demonstration of the catastrophic human cost of atomic armaments, creating a powerful taboo against their use that has held ever since.

The Modernisation Imperative

Supporters of restarting trials argue that it is a necessary component of modernising the US nuclear arsenal. The current warheads, while maintained through stewardship programmes, were designed decades ago. Developing new, more advanced warheads, they contend, requires empirical data that can only be gathered through explosive testing. They point to the need to adapt the arsenal to new strategic challenges, such as developing lower-yield weapons for more "flexible" deterrence options. This argument pits the perceived need for cutting-edge military technology against the established global norm of non-testing, forcing a difficult debate about the nature of security in an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape.

A Challenge to the Scientific Consensus

The directive to restart trials directly challenges the scientific consensus that has underpinned the Stockpile Stewardship Program for three decades. The scientists at national laboratories like Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore have long asserted their high degree of confidence in the reliability of the existing arsenal without resorting to explosive tests. A political directive to restart testing would be seen by many in this community as a vote of no confidence in their work. It would suggest that complex computer simulations and subcritical experiments are no longer sufficient, a claim that many physicists and engineers would vigorously dispute. The debate, therefore, is as much about scientific validation as it is about military strategy.

Geopolitical Instability and Nuclear Rhetoric

The timing of this debate is particularly fraught, given the current state of global affairs. The war in Ukraine has seen a significant increase in nuclear rhetoric from Moscow, with President Putin repeatedly reminding the world of Russia's atomic capabilities. This has created a heightened sense of nuclear risk not seen in decades. In this volatile environment, any move that appears to lower the threshold for nuclear escalation is viewed with extreme concern. A US nuclear test, regardless of its technical justification, would be interpreted by adversaries as a highly aggressive act, potentially leading to miscalculation and an escalation of tensions at a time when diplomatic channels are already strained.

The Future of Deterrence

Ultimately, the debate over nuclear testing is a debate about the future of deterrence. For decades, the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) kept a precarious peace between the superpowers. This stability rested on the belief that the existing arsenals were sufficiently powerful and reliable to guarantee catastrophic retaliation. Resuming testing to develop new types of weapons could destabilise this balance. It might create a perception that nuclear weapons could be made more "usable," blurring the line between conventional and nuclear conflict. This could lead to a world where nuclear threats become more commonplace and the risk of their actual use, whether by accident or design, increases dramatically.