Despite President Trump’s Claims, a U.S. Nuclear Weapons Test Remains Unlikely

US President Donald Trump has announced his intention to recommence nuclear weapons testing after a ban lasting decades. However, researchers from New Scientist contend that these tests bear no scientific relevance, are largely symbolic, pose a threat to global tranquility, and are likely to provoke public backlash in America. Ultimately, while the chances of these tests occurring seem slim, the announcement itself carries potential risks.

In a recent statement, President Trump revealed a new policy, stating in a post on Truth Social, “It’s in response to actions by other nations.” [sic] He further directed the War Department to initiate nuclear weapon tests on an equivalent basis, set to commence immediately.

The announcement lacked clarity, leaving experts puzzled as no other nation has conducted nuclear bomb tests recently. While Russia has experimented with nuclear underwater drones and nuclear-capable missiles, none of these actions involved actual nuclear detonations.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, indications have surfaced that several nations are preparing their historic nuclear testing sites, whether genuinely intending to test again or merely using it as a political display. Significant upgrades are underway at a Chinese testing site in Xinjiang, a Russian site in the Arctic, and a US site in Nevada.

However, restarting nuclear tests would contravene decades of effective yet uneasy bans. The Limited Test Ban Treaty, signed in 1963 by the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union, prohibits testing these weapons in the atmosphere, on water, or in space, yet allows for underground tests. Subsequently, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was drafted in 1996, effectively halting underground nuclear tests, albeit without formal ratification.

[Since the first Trinity explosion in 1945 in the United States, over 2000 tests have been conducted until the CTBT’s drafting. India and Pakistan conducted several nuclear tests in 1998, while North Korea remains the sole nation to have tested nuclear weapons in the 21st century, with its last test occurring in 2017. The United States has refrained from nuclear testing since 1992.]

Considering this context, many experts express skepticism towards President Trump’s remarks. There is speculation regarding a desire to win the Nobel Peace Prize, as the United States would be the first global superpower to restart nuclear testing.

John Preston, a researcher at the University of Essex, suggests the president’s declaration may merely be “Trump rhetoric,” lacking any genuine intention of conducting a nuclear test, though warns that even such statements can have perilous implications. Historically, the Soviet Union and Russia have aimed to exert pressure that compels their adversaries to de-escalate activities.

Preston notes that during the Cold War, nuclear powers invested considerable time and resources in bringing in diverse experts to thoroughly comprehend how nuclear testing and proliferation could heighten conflict. Recently, however, this issue has drawn less attention and has become increasingly secretive.

“I’m concerned that the escalation ladder may not be fully understood within the policy and nuclear strategy communities,” Preston commented. “Science has already grasped the effects of nuclear weapons; there’s nothing new to discover. Thus, these tests are strictly symbolic and could lead us into an escalation we no longer effectively understand.”

Indeed, the likelihood of generating significant scientific findings from such tests seems remote. Current nuclear testing relies on highly accurate physical simulations conducted via massive supercomputers. The two most powerful public supercomputers globally are operated by the US government and are utilized to affirm the effectiveness of the US nuclear deterrent without actual testing.

Christoph Laucht, a professor at Swansea University in the UK, asserts that restarting tests would signify a regressive step at a precarious juncture in history. The New START Treaty is set to lapse on February 4, 2026. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty puts the US and Russia in a situation where a formal nuclear treaty remains months away, with minimal prospects for a new agreement amidst the current tense global climate.

“There are genuine concerns that this could trigger a new form of nuclear arms race,” Laucht remarked. “We already possess a vast inventory of nuclear warheads, but we are reverting to a treaty environment reminiscent of the early Cold War, a time without arms limitation treaties.”

Laucht further warned that if one nation resumes testing, others may feel pressured to follow suit. Such testing could prompt protests from environmental activists, peace advocates, and communities near the Nevada test site, further straining an already divided United States.

Sarah Pozzi, a professor at the University of Michigan, argues that restarting nuclear testing would be illogical for the US. “Such actions would destabilize global affairs, incentivize other nations to resume their nuclear testing programs, and jeopardize decades of progress in nuclear arms control,” she stated. “Instead, the US should aspire to lead by example and bolster international efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation.”

Of course, there are various perspectives on the matter. In his typical style, President Trump has become fixated on cryptic, ambiguous social media posts that fail to convey the entire narrative.

Nick Ritchie, a researcher at the University of York in the UK, suggests that President Trump might merely be referring to testing nuclear delivery systems, such as missiles, rather than nuclear warheads themselves. Resuming warhead testing would likely necessitate years of planning, engineering, and political maneuvering beyond a single presidential term. However, if that is the case, it raises confusion because these delivery technologies are routinely tested alongside NATO allies.

“This is a quintessentially Trumpian method of discussing a variety of political matters, including potentially destabilizing and perilous issues like US nuclear weapons policy,” Ritchie observes. “While there remains a small chance of resuming actual testing preparations, I certainly have not seen any indications that this is on the horizon.”