 "US President Donald Trump. AP")
Last week, US President Donald Trump made many heads turn after he ordered the Pentagon to resume testing nuclear weapons . Trump made the announcement on his social media platform, TruthSocial. While what Trump meant by testing nuclear weapons was unclear, it came at an extremely turbulent time worldwide.
In a thought-provoking conversation with Firstpost’s Bhagyasree Sengupta, Melissa Parke , the executive director of the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize winner International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Ican), pointed out how the world is on the verge of a nuclear catastrophe if things don’t change for good.
Parke said the current events in Gaza and Ukraine are “threatening to tear down the fabric of the international law that has been built over the centuries”.
“Just this year alone, there have been major conflicts or confrontations among five out of the nine nuclear-armed states. So that’s the US, Russia, Israel, India and Pakistan,” Parke told Firstpost.
“There’s been an increase in nuclear threats and rhetoric, including from very senior political leaders. There is an almost complete breakdown in arms control agreements. The last one, New START, between the US and Russia, is set to expire in February. And there’s a new nuclear arms race underway.”
She emphasised that the world is at a crossroads right now, pointing out that either it can continue down the path of confrontation, which would ultimately lead to annihilation, or it can engage in “dialogue, diplomacy and disarmament”.
Impact Shorts
More ShortsShe urged the countries around the world to join the UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons , which comprehensively prohibits anything to do with nuclear weapons, including testing. “It’s incumbent on all countries that have not yet joined this treaty to do so as a matter of urgency to bring the world back into a situation where we’re not at immediate risk of destroying ourselves,” she said.
‘Trump’s remarks were reckless and unnecessary’
When asked about Trump’s latest order to the Pentagon to resume testing nuclear weapons, Parke stated that it was “not clear” what the American president meant when he posted the order on TruthSocial. “That is a very confused statement. Firstly, because Russia and China have not been carrying out nuclear weapons tests and also because it’s not the Department of War that would do any nuclear testing by the United States, but it would be the Department of Energy,” she said.
However, it brought some relief when the US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright announced that there would be no nuclear detonation tests. “It’s a testing of the systems, which is what we suspected,” Parke said.
Despite Wright’s clarification, Parke accused Trump of being “reckless” with his remarks. “President Trump’s announcement is an example of extremely reckless and unnecessary escalatory rhetoric that increases the dangers that the world faces from nuclear weapons, which pose an existential threat to humanity for every day they continue to exist,” she said.
“Any talk about resuming nuclear weapons testing, which has left a legacy of catastrophic damage around the world, is truly a backward step. And we hope that President Trump will dial down his rhetoric, actually listen to people within his own administration who know these things, and walk back those words, essentially.”
“President Trump’s announcement, which created a lot of concern, particularly for communities around the world that have been impacted by the more than 2,000 nuclear weapons tests that have been carried out to date. This is something that should not have occurred,” she furthered. Parke said that Wright’s recent clarification would hopefully calm things down.
“Unfortunately, we’ve just seen in the last week, North Korea threatening to carry out missile tests. We’ve seen the recent nuclear exercises by NATO called Steadfast Noon , as well as Russian and US nuclear exercises. So, there’s a lot of activity going on, which is just ramping up the fear and concern,” she said.
‘Trump can either start a war or eliminate nuclear weapons’
Parke, however, also pointed out a “denuclearisation” streak in Trump’s public remarks on the issue. She said the American leader also believes that nuclear weapons can be very “dangerous and wasteful of money”.
She said, “He’s said that same message many times throughout his life, including both his first term and now in his second term. And while he was campaigning to be president again, he had made those comments about wanting to denuclearise, wanting to talk to Russia and China about denuclearisation.”
“I think it is a genuinely held belief on his part. The problem is that it has not been matched with any actual action, whether it comes to reducing the investments, the trillions of dollars that are going into nuclear weapons modernisation in the United States. You know, that hasn’t been changed or reversed or halted in any way.”
“But what was encouraging when President Trump made those statements [about denuclearisation] is that President Putin has also said he would like to do that. I think the Chinese have also said they would be interested in seeing that happen, although they want to see the United States and Russia go first, as the countries that have more than 90 per cent of the world’s nuclear weapons,” she added.
Parke went on to call Trump a “rare kind of person who is entirely capable of starting a nuclear war, but he also could be a person who helps eliminate nuclear weapons.” “We don’t know which one is going to be. But we would like the better angel in his nature to win,” she remarked.
India-Pakistan conflict: Tension between two nuclear-armed nations
This year, the world witnessed a four-day military clash between two nuclear powers, India and Pakistan. While the conflict that broke out after the Pahalgam terror attack ended with a ceasefire, it rattled the world because both India and Pakistan possess nuclear warheads.
“India, of course, regularly tests its delivery systems, both land and submarine-launched ballistic missiles and its cruise missiles. And the most recent test was in August this year, when India tested its Agni-5 intermediate-range ballistic missile that can hit Pakistan and China. India also has dual-use missiles, or dual-capable missiles, I should say, that can carry a conventional or a nuclear warhead, such as the BrahMos cruise missile that it used against Pakistan during the short conflict in May this year,” Parke said.
She pointed out that even Pakistan has such weapons systems. “Pakistan also has dual-capable missiles. And the reason this is so problematic is that, you know, each side will not know when they detect a missile launch if the missile is a conventional missile or a nuclear missile. And this increases the uncertainty and the risk.”
“The only way of ensuring against these risks is for all countries to eliminate their nuclear weapons. The Federation of American Scientists estimates that India has 180 nuclear weapons and Pakistan has 170. Of course, the US and Russia have over 5,000 each, so they have over 90 per cent of the world’s nuclear arsenal,” Parke noted, adding how Moscow and Washington should take initiative to eliminate such weapons.
Can a nuclear war be actually limited or tactical?
While speaking to Firstpost, Parke cited a study conducted by Nature Food Journal , which highlighted the consequences of a limited nuclear war. “We know from all of the nuclear war games that have been carried out over the decades that even just the use of one nuclear weapon would have catastrophic consequences because it would result in an almost inevitable escalatory exchange of nuclear weapons,” she said.
“For example, the journal projected that a limited nuclear war between India and Pakistan would not only lead to millions of outright deaths through burns, blasts and radiation, but then there would be global climate disruption from the soot going into the stratosphere that would circle the globe and block out sunlight and lead to agricultural collapse for a decade or more, which would then lead to the death by starvation of at least two billion people in a nuclear winter,” she told Firstpost.
“That’s a so-called limited nuclear war scenario. A major nuclear war, say between the US and Russia, would essentially mean the end of human civilisation and most other life forms. But we know that the limited nuclear war scenario is actually likely to never happen.”
“It’s always likely to escalate to a major situation. The world is at such a point now where we need to draw back and look at where we are and say, This is madness. Because for all of the nuclear-armed states, they can’t use their nuclear weapons because any use would be not only genocidal, but also suicidal,” she furthered.
Can nations shun nuclear arsenals if they see enemies around?
When asked how India and Pakistan, which have a history of conflicts, can denuclearise without any fear, Parke pointed out that getting rid of such weapons is not something new. However, she went on to urge the US and Russia to take on the leadership role in this endeavour.
“I think Russia and the US, which have more than 90 per cent of the world’s nuclear arsenals, need to set the example. And they have in the past. Presidents [Ronald] Reagan and [Mikhail] Gorbachev came together in the late 1980s, and they almost agreed to eliminate nuclear weapons,” Parke recalled.
“In the end, they didn’t quite get there, but they did agree to vast reductions, which we saw the numbers of nuclear weapons reduce from around 70,000 to what is now around 12,500, which is 12,500 too many. But it shows that it can be done. And we have examples of countries like South Africa that had nuclear weapons and have given them up because they decided that they were not essential to their security.”
“In fact, the whole world would be much safer without nuclear weapons. I would think for India and Pakistan, they would want to make sure that they were doing it together, as in that there was a rigorous programme of verification and monitoring to ensure that each was reducing and then eliminating its arsenals. And as I mentioned, it’s been done before. We know how to do it. I mean, this is not complex. This is the least of all the global challenges. Humans built nuclear weapons, and humans can dismantle them. It’s about political will and leadership,” she said.
The tussle between Russia and Nato and why it is concerning
When asked about Trump’s latest accusation of Russia and China testing nuclear weapons secretly , Parke rejected the possibility, pointing to the strict monitoring procedures that are in place to prevent such tests.
“Well, there is the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which has a high membership, but it hasn’t entered into force because key countries have not ratified it. But there is a CTBT Organisation which does carry out monitoring. It’s a fairly comprehensive regime monitoring and conducting verification to ensure that tests are not happening,” Parke told Firstpost. “When something like that happens, they will know about it,” she said.
Recently, Russia introduced its nuclear-powered submarine, Khabarovsk . Last month, it successfully tested its nuclear-powered and nuclear-capable Burevestnik missile, which is also being called ‘flying Chernobyl". When asked about Russia’s latest aggressive moves amid the war in Ukraine, Alistair Burnett, Ican’s head of media, explained the gravity of the situation
“Russians have tested two different delivery systems in the past couple of weeks. One was the nuclear-powered cruise missile, which most of the world thinks is a crazy idea. That’s why it’s been called flying Chernobyl, because even if it has got a conventional warhead, once it explodes, you’ve got radiological contamination,” he told Firstpost.
“The second thing I think that you’re referring to is what they call the Poseidon torpedo, although actually it’s more of an underwater drone, which carries a large warhead. The Khabarovsk is the new submarine, which is capable of launching this drone. So it’s part of the ongoing modernisation that Russia is undertaking,” he furthered.
However, Burnett pointed out that Russia is not the only country that has been engaged in modernising its nuclear infrastructure. “France, in the past couple of weeks, announced a new upgraded submarine-launched ballistic missile entering into service. The US is replacing all three legs of its triad. It’s constructing new ballistic missile submarines. It’s replacing its entire ICBM force with a new force, although that is running way over budget, and there are problems, technical problems, but it’s ongoing. And it’s also replacing its strategic bombers with new stealth bombers,” he said.
Burnett pointed out how it was the Obama administration which actually started the modernisation process, which was ultimately inherited by Trump. Parke maintained that the modernisation of these weapon systems can be dangerous.
“The thing about the so-called modernisation programmes is that they’re making these weapon systems so much more dangerous and risky because they’re increasingly integrating artificial intelligence into command and control and communication systems and early warning systems,” she averred.
“They’re speeding up warfare with hypersonic missiles, they’re decreasing decision-making time, but making these systems vulnerable to cyber hacking. So this is so dangerous. What is occurring right now and to have global leaders amping up the rhetoric unnecessarily while all of the nuclear war games are going on in different parts of the world, it’s an invitation to disaster.”
How Nato’s exercises are also concerning
Burnett said that while Nato’s Steadfast Noon and Russian exercises are annual in nature and they make it clear that they are not aimed at anybody in particular, they are still concerning. “They are a potent reminder of the fact that both of these powers can annihilate each other and the rest of us using the weapons that they’re practising using. I mean, the Nato exercise is also questionable. And it is challenged under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ,” Burnett told Firstpost.
“All of the countries taking part are state parties to the NPT, which bans the transfer of nuclear weapons from five original nuclear-weapon states under the treaty, and any other country. Now, the United States deploys its own, they’re upgraded in the past couple of years, nuclear bombs to five Nato countries , Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. And there is very, very strong evidence, almost certain that the United States has now returned its nuclear weapons to the United Kingdom.”
“So these weapons are intended for use in Europe. And what we’ve seen is that the United States has always insisted that these arrangements predate the NPT and that they do not involve the transfer of control of the weapon. And that, therefore, it is consistent with the treaty.”
“Other countries and other experts say this is not the case because once the aircraft is airborne and the weapon is armed, it’s under the control of the pilot. And that pilot would be a national of Belgium, Germany, Turkey, Italy or the Netherlands. And that means that, you know, it comes down to a dispute over the definition of control, but it is questionable under the NPT,” he said.
Burnett pointed out that these developments are some of the reasons Russia used to justify deploying nuclear weapons to Belarus.
The hour of diplomacy
Parke said that Ican and other similar bodies have been pleading with the world to reconsider its aggressive rhetoric and engage in dialogue and diplomacy. “When New Start [Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty] is gone in February, there will be no controls, no limits on the numbers or types of nuclear weapons. It’s it’s a dangerous time,” she said.
“The other thing I wanted to say is about this rhetoric about nuclear weapons testing, it has left a catastrophic legacy across the planet, and it’s caused devastating intergenerational health impacts of cancers, birth defects, trauma, displacement, poisoned land, air and water for generations. It’s not just historical events; this is more than 80 years of ongoing widespread catastrophic harm to humans and the environment,” Parke said.
“So any talk about repeating those crimes is indefensible. There is a clear pathway for the international community to take, which is based on international law and multilateralism, and that is the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons [TPNW]. We really need nuclear-armed states and states that support the use of nuclear weapons to get on board with this treaty, instead of going in the other direction and amping up the rhetoric.”
Iran and the demise of JCPOA
Earlier this year, the United States targeted Iran’s three nuclear sites . A few months later, we also saw the end of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a 2015 agreement between Iran and several world powers to limit Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for lifting international sanctions.
The recent developments have led to a rise in concern over what lies ahead for West Asia. When sharing her take on the matter, Parke noted that Israel and the US attacked Iran when Tehran was engaged in talks with Washington to frame a new agreement.
“Iran is now deciding whether or not it will allow IAEA inspectors to the three bombed sites and whether it will remain in the Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT]. Those reactions from Iran are understandable because the double standards and the hypocrisy of the current nuclear order are very clear from those episodes. After all, here you had two nuclear-armed states, Israel and the US, attacking a country that did not have nuclear weapons that the IAEA and the US intelligence agencies had both assessed as not developing nuclear weapons,” she said.
“Israel is a nuclear-armed state that has never opened itself to inspections, but it’s demanding that Iran does all these things that Israel itself is not prepared to do, has never done. So the double standards are kind of breathtaking, and the fact remains that as long as any countries retain nuclear weapons and claim that they are essential for their security, others will want them.”
“So nuclear weapons possession is a direct encouragement to proliferation, and we know that so long as any country retains nuclear weapons, they are bound one day to be used, whether by accident or by design. What we would like to see is, well, a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East, which of course means Israel, in particular, because it is the only nuclear-armed country in the Middle East at present. But more broadly than that, we want to see a nuclear weapons-free world, which is what the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is all about,” she furthered.
Burnett pointed out how the Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian spoke about restarting the enrichment process while adding that the West Asian nation has no intention of developing nuclear weapons. “But I do think the possession of nuclear weapons has given some countries the feeling that they are unaccountable under international law. And we’ve seen this very clearly in recent times from Russia, from the US and from Israel. Nuclear weapons have emboldened them to behave as nuclear bullies,” Parke said.
Tensions in the Indo-Pacific region
Recently, the United States has agreed to aid both Australia and South Korea in building nuclear-powered submarines, given the rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific region. Parke called both moves controversial.
“Well, of course, there is the Aukus agreement between Australia and the US and the UK about, you know, Australia being supplied with first US and then UK-built nuclear-powered submarines , which has been very controversial, both within Australia and with countries in the region. Because, basically, it’s a region that does not like and does not want anything to do with nuclear weapons, nor does it want nuclear-powered submarines,” she said.
“If one of these nuclear-powered submarines were to sink, you would have the permanent potential for high-level radioactive waste to contaminate the ocean environment. And not to mention the provocation that building large submarines that are meant for long-distance forward projection of power, rather than defence of your nation.”
“The ones that Aukus proposes are large forward projection of power submarines meant to be used on China’s doorstep . And so it is understandable why China doesn’t like it, but it’s also understandable why the Pacific countries in the Pacific and the Indian Oceans don’t like it either,” she added.
Is the world on the verge of a nuclear catastrophe?
When asked if the world is on the verge of nuclear catastrophe, Parke noted that dialogue should be encouraged. “I think we have the capacity as human beings to choose dialogue over confrontation, to choose diplomacy over militarisation and disarmament over proliferation.”
“We have the capacity to create a new future that respects Earth and each other. But we need to decide to do that and to take those actions to bring that about. The leadership that’s being shown at present is from civil society, and it’s from the countries that have joined the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons,” she said.
As of September 2025, 74 states have ratified or acceded to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), while 95 have signed it. Burnett noted that countries such as Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh are some of the state parties.
Parke concluded the conversation saying that “the dinosaurs did not have the option to avoid the asteroid that made them extinct. But nuclear weapons are not part of the natural world that we are doomed to suffer. We have a choice. We can choose to eliminate the existential threat by eliminating these weapons. So let’s make that choice.”