‘Dangerous for humanity’: Nuclear testing truth exposed
As the world reacts to US President Donald Trump’s huge nuclear weapons call, this is what an arms race could really mean for the future of humanity.
ANALYSIS
Nuclear tests? Or testing nukes?
The difference is profound. And has dire global implications.
So the future may hinge on US President Donald Trump’s ability to comprehend the difference, whether or not he’s playing “madman” politics, and the advice he’s getting from his intelligence agency appointees.
“Because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis,” the US president proclaimed recently.
“That process will begin immediately.”
Since then, strategic analysts worldwide have been struggling to come to grips with what he means.
“And it certainly perplexed those who follow these matters as Trump’s announcement appeared to be based on a misapprehension about what other nations are doing and made little strategic or practical sense,” notes British strategist Lawrence Freedman.
“As is often the case with some of Trump’s more dramatic announcements, [this] did not betray extensive staff work or fact-checking.”
Was it about testing nuclear warheads? That’s what the words seem to say.
Was it about testing means of delivering nuclear warheads? That’s what Russia’s just done.
Was it about China’s rapidly expanding nuclear arsenal? The statement was made immediately before Mr Trump met with Mr Xi.
“There are concerns that Russia and China may have been cheating, essentially conducting nuclear explosive tests in a way that is undetectable to the international community,” notes the vice president of international affairs US think tank Atlantic Council Matthew Kroenig.
But evidence supporting this claim is yet to be presented.
Meanwhile, President Trump appears certain in his own mind as to what’s going on.
“You’ll find out very soon”, he told reporters aboard Air Force One recently.
“But we’re going to do some testing, yeah. Other countries do it. If they’re going to do it, we’re going to do it.”
Mutually assured disruption
“The United States has more Nuclear Weapons than any other country,” President Trump stated in a Truth Social post.
“This was accomplished, including a complete update and renovation of existing weapons, during my First Term in office. Because of the tremendous destructive power, I HATED to do it, but had no choice!”
“They seem to all be nuclear testing. We have more nuclear weapons than anybody,” the President later added on Air Force One. “We don’t do testing, and we halted it many years ago, but with others doing testing, I think it’s appropriate that we do also.”
Despite repeating his assertions, Trump’s meaning remains unclear.
“Every sentence is problematic,” writes Sir Freedman.
“Russia has more nuclear weapons than the US, because of its substantial arsenal of short and medium-range weapons.
“The renovation of the US nuclear arsenal began under the Obama administration, and it was about replacement not addition.
“China is working hard to catch up with the US and Russia but it won’t be there by 2030.
“No other country is currently testing weapons. So what is meant by ‘equal basis?’
“The US can’t test immediately, and if it could, that would be the responsibility of the Department of Energy and not the Department of Defence, which Mr Trump likes to call the “Department of War”.
“Other than those issues he’s spot on.”
Chain reactions
“This has all the hallmarks of one of Trump’s more impulsive initiatives,” says Sir Freedman. “For that reason, [it] may lead to a flurry of activity while officials try to work out what he wants, before it all becomes too difficult and is then forgotten. For reasons to be explained, that is more likely than not.”
President Trump certainly has cause to have nuclear weapons on his mind.
Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s propagandists have again been advocating a “demonstration” to intimidate NATO away from its support for Ukraine. This could involve setting off a small nuclear warhead in remote Arctic territory.
“While it is always dangerous to dismiss such hyperbolic rhetoric completely, the truth is that what he has said is bluff, brinkmanship and errant nonsense,” argues defence and security consultant Stuart Crawford.
“There is absolutely zero chance of his threat being carried out.”
A clash between Pakistan and India earlier this year degenerated from accusations of supporting terrorists to nuclear posturing within the space of just 24 hours. And Mr Trump was sufficiently concerned at the nuclear threat Iran posed to nuclear-armed Israel that he ordered the bombing of its underground production facilities.
Amid all this, the last surviving Cold War-era nuclear arms treaty is due to expire in February.
Talks on renewing the START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) are yet to get off the ground.
So far President Trump has simply stated talks sound “like a good idea”. And President Putin also seems keen.
But Mr Trump insists no deal will be possible without China signing on to the agreement.
“Whether anything will be negotiated to maintain these restraints beyond February is unclear. None of the nuclear-armed states are negotiating any other new treaties, either,” notes the University of Melbourne’s Dr Tilman Ruff.
“All of this means the Doomsday Clock – one of the most authoritative and best-known assessments of the existential threats facing the world – has moved forward this year further than it has ever done before.
“It’s really an extraordinarily dangerous time in history.”
Testing times
“The suggestion of ‘nuclear testing’ immediately evokes images of mushroom clouds and explosions in remote locations,” observes Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) nuclear analyst Heather Williams.
“However, research on nuclear weapons has moved well beyond those experiences of the early decades of the Cold War. The United States has been able to rely on high-energy lasers and supercomputing at the national labs to confirm the safety,”
Put simply, the United States doesn’t need to explode a bomb to test its nuclear capabilities.
It has already conducted 1054 carefully monitored tests. Russia has set off 715. And China 47.
So the only winner in a renewed nuclear warhead testing scenario is Beijing.
“This asymmetry in test data has been a sore spot for Chinese officials who felt disadvantaged by arms control agreements such as the Partial Test Ban Treaty,” Ms Williams explains. “If one country returns to nuclear testing, others are likely to follow.”
China’s build-up of its nuclear arsenal rivals that of its naval forces. Vast new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) fields are being built in the remote desert of China’s Xinjiang region.
Beijing is believed to have about 600 nuclear warheads. By 2030, this figure is expected to surpass 1000.
And the White House suspects it may have been conducting test nuclear detonations on the sly.
A 2020 Department of State report stated it could not rule out suspicions a test may have taken place at China’s Lop Nor test site, which has since undergone significant expansion.
Its 2022 report went on to accuse Russia of conducting tests in violation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) “zero-yield” standard. And its Novaya Zemlya test facility, in the Arctic, has also been expanded.
“Whereas some extremely small nuclear tests might not produce any noticeable seismic yield, they could still produce a nuclear chain reaction that would provide data about weapons designs or the behaviour of fissile material over time, albeit in violation of the CTBT,” Ms Williams concludes.
Jamie Seidel is a freelance writer | @jamieseidel.bsky.social
Originally published as ‘Dangerous for humanity’: Nuclear testing truth exposed
