Nuclear testing Resumption by U.S. Nuclear Testing: A Turning Point

In late 2025, President Donald Trump made a statement that immediately reverberated across global strategic and diplomatic circles: he had instructed the United States to “immediately” resume nuclear weapons testing “on an equal basis” with other nuclear powers such as Russia and China. This declaration represented a profound shift from more than three decades of American policy. Since 1992, the United States has maintained a voluntary moratorium on full nuclear explosive testing, relying instead on advanced simulations and subcritical experiments. Trump’s move has therefore raised concerns not only for its direct security implications but also for its potential to destabilize long-standing arms control norms that have helped prevent nuclear escalation since the end of the Cold War.

Nature and Purpose of the U.S. Decision

After Trump’s announcement, a crucial clarification came from the U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Secretary Chris Wright stressed that the tests being considered were not full nuclear detonations, but “system tests” and other noncritical experiments. These tests would not involve a nuclear chain reaction; instead, they would examine the reliability of non-nuclear components of warheads—such as casings, firing systems, and delivery mechanisms. In other words, the U.S. is not currently preparing for underground nuclear explosions but is looking to bolster confidence in its aging stockpile through controlled, non-explosive methods.

Several reasons underpin Washington’s shift:

1. Strategic Signaling to Rival Powers

Trump framed the announcement as an attempt to maintain parity with nuclear competitors, particularly Russia and China. Both countries have been modernizing their arsenals, and Trump’s message appears designed to signal that the U.S. will not lag behind in nuclear readiness or in its capacity to field a credible deterrent.

2. Reliability and Modernization of the Stockpile

The U.S. possesses an aging nuclear arsenal, much of it designed during the Cold War. Non-explosive testing helps ensure that warheads remain safe and effective as components degrade or as new designs are introduced. Component-level tests can identify vulnerabilities without violating the decades-long norm against nuclear explosions.

3. Bargaining Leverage in Arms Control

Some analysts interpret the announcement as a geopolitical strategy. By raising the specter of renewed testing, Washington may be seeking additional leverage in future arms control negotiations. Signaling willingness to break long-standing taboos can be a form of coercive diplomacy—an attempt to pressure rivals by altering the status quo.

Russia’s Reaction: Warning, Preparation, and Cautious Escalation

Russia responded swiftly and forcefully. President Vladimir Putin ordered the defense and foreign ministries to prepare detailed proposals for resuming Russian nuclear testing if the U.S. follows through. While Moscow has not restarted testing, this directive indicates that Russia is willing to move in parallel should Washington take the first step.

Senior Russian officials reinforced this stance. Defense Minister Andrei Belousov stated that the Novaya Zemlya test site—used extensively during the Soviet era—could be reactivated. General Valery Gerasimov added that Russia must not lose “time or opportunity” to prepare its own response. Together, these statements suggest that Russia views Trump’s announcement not as a symbolic gesture but as a potential threat requiring immediate strategic adjustment.

Yet there is nuance. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov emphasized that Russia would act only if the United States actually resumes full nuclear testing. For now, Moscow’s posture is preparatory rather than escalatory. Nonetheless, even these conditional warnings amplify global concern about a renewed nuclear arms race.

Global Implications and Risks

The possibility of resumed U.S. nuclear testing—whether noncritical or eventually explosive—has triggered widespread alarm. International security experts highlight several far-reaching consequences:

1. Breakdown of the Nuclear Testing Taboo

Since the early 1990s, an informal but powerful global consensus has discouraged nuclear explosive testing. Although the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) has not formally entered into force, it has effectively restrained all major nuclear powers. The Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI) argues that a U.S. return to testing—even limited testing—could be the “last nail in the coffin” for the treaty. Other nuclear-armed states might feel justified in resuming their own tests, triggering a destabilizing chain reaction.

2. Damage to Arms Control Agreements

U.S.–Russia nuclear arms control frameworks are already fragile, particularly amid geopolitical tensions. A move toward testing could undermine the already-compromised New START treaty, erode remaining trust, and make future negotiations far more difficult. It would also weaken the credibility of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which relies on nuclear-armed nations demonstrating restraint.

3. Risk of a Renewed Global Arms Race

Resumed testing, even in a non-explosive form, can normalize nuclear modernization. This could spur rivals—especially Russia and China—to accelerate development of new warheads and delivery systems. Secondary nuclear powers such as India and Pakistan might also feel compelled to reevaluate their own testing and modernization strategies, multiplying global risks.

4. Heightened Strategic Instability

The erosion of decades-old norms increases the likelihood of miscalculation during crises. If countries believe their nuclear arsenals are becoming more reliable through testing, they may view nuclear threats or even limited nuclear use as more plausible options in conflict scenarios.

5. Environmental and Humanitarian Concerns

Although current U.S. plans do not involve explosive testing, any return to underground nuclear detonations would raise severe environmental and health concerns. Historically, test sites around the world—from Nevada to the Pacific—have left behind radioactive contamination with longstanding effects on local populations.

Expert Criticism and International Concern

Arms control experts have sharply criticized Trump’s announcement. The Arms Control Association (ACA) described it as “reckless,” noting that the U.S. has no technical need to resume explosive nuclear testing. According to the ACA, the Nevada National Security Site would require at least three years to prepare for full-scale underground detonations.

Meanwhile, conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation acknowledge that modern supercomputing, high-fidelity simulations, and subcritical testing should be sufficient to ensure arsenal reliability without renewing nuclear blasts. The IAI warned that restarting tests could create an “action-reaction” spiral among nuclear states, unraveling progress made since the Cold War.

Former diplomats and analysts writing for Russia Matters stressed that the existing moratorium has played a vital role in maintaining global stability and that undoing this norm would invite severe new risks.

Strategic Implications for Major Powers

United States

The U.S. aims to demonstrate its continued nuclear supremacy and maintain deterrence credibility. However, its actions risk alienating allies who favor arms control and raising international suspicion about American intentions.

Russia

Moscow’s response—preparatory but conditional—signals readiness to escalate if needed. Reactivating test sites could become a major symbolic and strategic step, reinforcing Russia’s position but also heightening global danger.

China and Other Nuclear States

China, already rapidly expanding and modernizing its nuclear arsenal, may view U.S. actions as justification to accelerate its own testing or modernization. Other nuclear states may follow suit, deepening the erosion of nonproliferation norms.

Global Non-Proliferation Framework

Renewed testing threatens to weaken both the CTBT and NPT. If great powers abandon restraint, non-nuclear states may question the value of treaties that require them to remain without nuclear weapons while major powers upgrade theirs.

Possible Long-Term Scenarios

1. Escalation to Full Nuclear Explosive Tests

Even if the current intention is limited testing, geopolitical rivalry could eventually push major powers toward resuming underground nuclear detonations.

2. A New Nuclear Arms Race

Testing could serve as a catalyst for a modern arms race involving new warhead designs, hypersonic delivery systems, low-yield tactical weapons, and other destabilizing technologies.

3. Diplomatic Collapse

Arms control negotiations may become nearly impossible, as mutual trust erodes and political divisions deepen.

4. Environmental Fallout

If explosive testing resumes anywhere in the world, radioactive contamination and humanitarian consequences could reemerge.

5. Strategic Instability

A weakening of nuclear taboos increases the likelihood of nuclear weapons being considered in future conflicts.

Conclusion

President Trump’s directive to restart nuclear weapons testing marks a dramatic departure from decades of American restraint. Although current plans emphasize noncritical, non-explosive tests, the political symbolism of the announcement has already had major global repercussions. Russia has begun preparing its own response, signaling readiness to resume testing if the United States takes the first substantive step. The risk now lies not only in the tests themselves but in the erosion of norms and treaties that have constrained nuclear competition for over 30 years.

Experts overwhelmingly argue that the U.S. does not technically require explosive tests to maintain the reliability of its arsenal. The decision therefore appears driven largely by strategic signaling and geopolitical competition. Whether this moment becomes the beginning of a destabilizing new nuclear era will depend on the reactions of Russia, China, and the broader international community—and on whether diplomacy can reassert itself before long-standing restraints completely unravel.