That Eureka! Moment

"We are already in the midst of a three-way arms race among Russia the United States, and China."

"A resumption in testing of nuclear warheads would make this unstable situation worse, possibly far worse."

William Hartung, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft

 

"By foolishly announcing his intention to resume nuclear testing, Trump will trigger strong international opposition that could unleash a chain reaction of nuclear testing y U.S. adversaries and blow apart the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty."

Daryl Kimball, Executive Director, Arms Control Association

 

"The only one who would benefit from nuclear warhead testing would be China, because they haven't done as many as Russia and the U.S."

"[As far as  nuclear weapons themselves], everything is done now through computational testing."

"The U.S. is far ahead of Russia and China on how much data it has from this, so it really doesn't need it at the moment [explosive testing]."

"None of them actually want to return to testing, but because they're thinking the other is preparing for testing, then that's how we end up testing."

"So that's the big risk involved at the moment."

Doreen Horschig, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)

A mushroom cloud rises from a test blast at the Nevada test site on June 24, 1957.

US Energy Department/AP

 

"First of all, every statement in that post [President Trump's musing statement on his social media site, Truth Social] is wrong."

"It’s not true the United States has the world’s most nuclear weapons. It’s not true that other states are carrying out nuclear tests."

"[Trump] seems to think it’s the Department of Defense that carries out nuclear tests. It’s not. It’s the Department of Energy."

Matthew Bunn, nuclear weapons expert, Harvard University 

 

"Neither China nor Russia has conducted a nuclear explosive test, so I’m not reading anything into it or reading anything out."

"[The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation defines nuclear tests as] generally controlled explosions of [a] nuclear device, such as bombs or warheads [and Russia’s missile and torpedo tests do not meet that strict definition]."

U.S. Navy Vice Adm. Richard Correll 

Photo: CORBIS/Corbis/Getty Images

Once again, U.S. President Donald Trump's casual musing and extemporaneously-impulsive decision-making is turning incredulous heads in disbelief, shocking supporters and critics alike, and cutting like a buzzsaw through the corridors of international political diplomacy. This is a man who likes to keep people on their toes, a man who doesn't mind that what erupts from his mind and mouth is not particularly true, nor his decisions based on his warped perspectives creating blinding headaches for other world leaders; worth it all, and more, for the attention he garners. Attention that is proof-positive of the exalted political position he holds as the commanding, demanding most powerful man at the helm of the world's sole super-power.

 

What emerges from his mind and his mouth emits are his truths and if they're his truths then everyone must pay due attention and with it the homage he craves. Do otherwise and the wrath of this demi-God knows no bounds; his decisions can make and break the most carefully guarded quality of a nation's possessions; its economic health and security. While saying in one breath that he abhors conflicts and human death, he embarks on his own special eradication gambit, a 'war on terror' focusing on Venezuela and authorizing U.S. military assets to blow fishing boats out of the water in his measure of illustrating conflict/death.

 

U.S. testing, he announced, of nuclear warheads would commence "immediately", while on the other hand musing about the dire necessity of prolonging non-proliferation agreements for the good of humanity. It is not beyond reasonable to imagine the consequences that might ensue from his impulse of resuming nuclear tests; the risk of an expanded arms race becomes a huge potential. Nor that he announced his firm intention to proceed instanter comes at a time when internaional arms control has become wobbly.

 

If Washington's decision via its incendiary president was meant to match the positions taken by Beijing and Moscow, the president's decision would logically have been to remain wary in the realization that those he considers adversaries have the potential to resume nuclear testing, yet have chosen to refrain from so doing, in favour of continuing to honour the non-proliferation agreements they signed. Claiming that he authorized nuclear testing "on an equal basis" with Moscow and Beijing, is just Trump being Trump, take-it-or-leave-it. 

 

He has no realization that his 'immediate' decision itself cannot be implemented 'immediately'; it would take years of preparation before such resumption could take place, after a hiatus of decades. But it most certainly would spur Beijing and Moscow to rush to engage their own capabilities in a match with Washington's. All three of these world powers have in the interim engaged in testing delivery systems, not warheads; Russia's most recent of the platforms being tested appearing to have galvanized Mr. Trump's response, clearly demonstrating he cannot differentiate nuclear explosives from their delivery systems. 

 

Beijing responded politely indicating its hopes that Washington would reconsider and remain respectful ofits obligations to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and "take concrete actions to safeguard the global nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation system", while Moscow took pains to carefully describe to the American president that testing its nuclear-powered and -capable weapons did not constitute a direct test of atomic weaponry. (It's the delivery systems, stupid!)

 

The United States and Russia together represent the world's two leading nuclear powers; China is behind them in developing its nuclear arsenal but still remains far behind the other two. It was likely that last year's Pentagon warning that China is moving quickly on nuclear arms, particuraly in the development of operational warheads, that lodged itself firmly in Mr. Trump's mind; he doesn't like to be upstaged by anyone, nor that any other country reach for a position too close to that of the United States in superiority of numbers of anything.

 

The New Start arms control agreement between Washington and Mosow limits each to 1,550 deployed strategic offensive warheads, including a suspended verification mechanism, to expire in February2026, which Russia has proposed extending for another year. "Sounds like a good idea to me", Trump responded, without committing to anything that solid. "We are starting to work on that, a big problem for the world when you take off nuclear restrictions", he averred, in direct contradiction with the position he now takes. China's warhead total is one-third of that of Russia and the U.S.

 

And then there is the existential question, querulous but potently aware: How many warheads does it take to destroy this Earthly home we share? A minute proportion of the total, presumably. Which brings us to another question: How absurdly, dangerously pathetic can the powers that threaten our survival possibly be? Their actions, needless to say answer the second question, and until and unless a final solution is seriouisly entertained we won't know the answer to the first. And wouldn't know it in any event, since there woould be no one left to do the calculations of that Eureka! moment. 

 

President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping look at each other after their summit meeting in Busan, South Korea, on Oct. 30, 2025. | Mark Schiefelbein/AP

"The post also comes just weeks after Putin offered to continue to observe the limits of the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) if the United States reciprocated. On October 28, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov expressed his “hope” that Trump would positively respond to Putin’s offer and the principles discussed at the Anchorage Summit, saying, “President Trump has repeatedly spoken positively about this initiative put forward by President Putin, so we are actually hoping that these positive reactions will be translated into some kind of official announcement.” Other than an off-handed remark by Trump that it sounded “like a good idea,” there has been no official announcement from the White House on the future of New START, which expires in February 2026 and is the last remaining bilateral strategic arms control agreement of its kind. Trump’s post could also be an effort to generate negotiating leverage with Moscow."

"Finally, the administration should also take the opportunity to clarify Trump’s statements and recommit to nuclear agreements that are in U.S. interests. Washington would be worse off if states, particularly China, return to nuclear testing, which it likely would in response to U.S. test plans. This would undermine the norm against nuclear testing and could result in a reverse normative cascade, with implications for other rules of the road, such as nuclear nonproliferation."

Heather Williams, director, Project on Nuclear Issues, senior fellow, Defense and Security Department, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C.