The global landscape of nuclear weapons is at a critical juncture, marked by heightened tensions, the erosion of established treaties, and the modernization of arsenals. The looming expiration of the New START treaty, the last remaining nuclear arms control agreement between the United States and Russia, raises concerns about an unchecked nuclear arms race. The potential for a return to the Cold War era, where nuclear stockpiles exceeded 70,000 warheads, is a sobering prospect. The current global inventory of around 12,000 warheads, while significantly lower, still represents a catastrophic threat to humanity. The absence of a replacement for New START would mark the first time in half a century without any agreed-upon limitations on nuclear arsenals between the two largest nuclear powers. This precarious situation is further complicated by China’s expansion of its nuclear capabilities, and the continuing nuclear threats posed by North Korea and a potentially nuclear-armed Iran.
The re-election of Donald Trump as US President introduces significant uncertainty into this already volatile environment. Trump’s past actions, including withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and the Treaty on Open Skies, demonstrate a disregard for international arms control agreements. While his self-proclaimed deal-making abilities could potentially lead to a new agreement with Russia, his previous actions make the future of New START uncertain. The risk of a renewed nuclear arms race is amplified by the potential for a global catastrophe should even a fraction of the world’s nuclear weapons be used. Scientific projections suggest that the resulting smoke and debris from nuclear explosions would trigger a “nuclear winter,” blocking sunlight, disrupting climate patterns, and leading to widespread famine.
The United States is currently engaged in a comprehensive modernization of its nuclear arsenal, upgrading warheads, missiles, submarines, and bombers. This multi-decade, multi-billion dollar undertaking is already facing cost overruns and delays. Experts believe that Trump’s ability to significantly alter this ongoing process is limited. However, he could potentially revive the development of a new nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile, a project initiated during his first term but subsequently shelved by the Biden administration. This new weapon would represent a significant shift in US nuclear strategy and could be perceived as an aggressive move by Russia and China, further escalating tensions. Beyond new weapon development, the potential dissolution of New START could give Trump the latitude to increase the number of deployed nuclear weapons, a move that would be closely watched by the international community.
A crucial question surrounding Trump’s second term is whether the United States will return to nuclear weapons testing, breaking a moratorium that has been in place since 1992. While the United States signed the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty in 1996, it has not been ratified by Congress. Despite this, the US has adhered to the treaty’s provisions. However, some individuals within Trump’s circle have advocated for a resumption of testing, and discussions about this possibility reportedly took place during his previous administration. Such a move would be a profound departure from international norms and could trigger a domino effect, encouraging other nuclear-armed nations to also resume testing. The historical legacy of nuclear testing, with over 2,000 tests conducted, highlights the devastating consequences for human health and the environment. Even underground tests, while limiting fallout, carry the risk of releasing radioactive material.
The Trump administration’s 2026 nuclear posture review will provide crucial insights into its nuclear strategy, investment priorities, and the perceived role of nuclear weapons in US national security. This review will offer a roadmap for the administration’s approach to nuclear weapons, shaping future policies and potentially impacting global stability. The potential return to nuclear testing would be a significant escalation, potentially undermining global efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and escalating tensions between nuclear and non-nuclear states. Furthermore, it raises serious ethical questions about the environmental and health consequences of such tests.
While some argue that explosive nuclear testing is essential for maintaining a credible deterrent, others maintain that advancements in non-explosive “subcritical” testing and computer simulations have rendered such tests unnecessary and even counterproductive. The development of advanced facilities like the Scorpius machine at the Nevada National Security Site, capable of generating detailed X-ray images of plutonium experiments, reinforces the argument that explosive testing is no longer essential for maintaining a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent. The potential resumption of nuclear testing under the Trump administration presents a grave concern, raising the specter of a renewed nuclear arms race and jeopardizing decades of progress in nuclear non-proliferation. It’s a decision with far-reaching consequences for global security and the future of humanity.
