US President Donald Trump’s regressive decision on restarting nuclear weapons tests throws a spanner in decades of global work on a moratorium. Except for rogue North Korea, no other country has violated the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that came into effect in 1996. The US signed it, but its senate never ratified the treaty. China, too, did not ratify it, and Russia revoked its ratification in 2023. Yet, the big three showed enough responsibility to stay off live testing. This norm could be torn asunder if the US administration walks the testing talk. Trump justified his decision saying Russia, China, North Korea, and Pakistan are already doing it. However, except for Pyongyang, there is no evidence of any other country indulging in live nuclear tests. US Energy Secretary Chris Wright sought to clarify that his boss’s proposal does not involve live nuclear detonations. “These are system tests, non-critical explosions,” he explained. But nuclear powers are not barred from sub-critical tests. So, what is the big deal? Chances are that Trump is following the Project 2025 playbook—a radical think tank’s blueprint for governance during Trump 2.0—that urges the president to be willing to conduct tests in response to adversaries’ actions. A major part of Trump 2.0’s policy mess can be traced back to Project 2025.
Trump perhaps played the nuclear card because Russian President Vladimir Putin refused to scale down his maximalist demand for territory to end the Ukraine war. Instead, Putin spoke about three new cutting-edge nuclear assets—Poseidon, a nuclear-powered and -armed torpedo; Burevestnik, a nuclear cruise missile; and Satan 2, a nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile that is supposed to be imminently deployed. While Putin knew what he was talking about, Trump’s understanding of nuclear issues seems muddled. Besides, the faltering New START Treaty to reduce the stockpile of US and Russian nuclear arms is due to expire in another three months.
The problem with the resumption of live bomb testing is that it could prompt a global nuclear arms race to test and upgrade the existing stockpiles, throwing multilateral safeguards out of the window. At a time when the world is grappling with intense geopolitical tensions and climate change, it would be foolhardy to add the risk of nuclear radiation. One hopes better sense will prevail.
