 "Image- AFP")
President Donald Trump’s latest announcement that the United States will “start testing nuclear weapons on an equal basis” with Russia and China has alarmed allies, confused analysts, and unsettled the fragile global nuclear order. The statement made just before his meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in South Korea, have fuelled speculation about whether Washington plans to resume underground nuclear tests for the first time since 1992 or whether the president simply meant missile trials.
A statement steeped in ambiguity
Asked aboard Air Force One if he was referring to live nuclear explosions, Trump declined to elaborate. “You’ll find out very soon, 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,” he said.
The timing of his comments appeared deliberate. Russia had just claimed successful tests of a nuclear-powered cruise missile and an underwater drone, while Trump was en route to meet Xi. The mix of posturing and provocation has raised questions about whether the statement was genuine policy or political theatre aimed at projecting strength before rivals.
Tomáš Nagy, Senior Research Fellow for Nuclear, Space, and Missile Defence wrote for GLOBSEC, the statement should not be viewed as a concrete policy shift. “It might rather be understood in a broader context as pre-meeting signalling ahead of the Trump-Xi summit, or as a rhetorical reaction to Russia’s recent nuclear-capable system tests,” he said.
Testing what — the warhead or the missile?
Part of the confusion stems from Trump’s phrasing. In nuclear terminology, “testing” can refer either to detonating a warhead or to trialling its delivery system. Nagy notes that the latter is more likely: “Nuclear weapons consist of both the warhead and its delivery vehicle. Testing could therefore refer not to a nuclear explosive test, but to missile systems such as additional Minuteman or Trident trials. All of these would carry symbolic, not explosive, significance.”
If Trump was indeed referring to missile testing, his declaration would amount to symbolism rather than substance, a gesture of parity with Moscow and Beijing rather than a resumption of Cold War-style detonations.
Impact Shorts
More ShortsGlobal norms and domestic confusion
The United States has not conducted an explosive nuclear test since 1992, instead relying on advanced computer modelling, sub-critical testing, and high-performance simulation to maintain the reliability of its stockpile. With artificial intelligence, supercomputers, and big-data modelling, Washington has avoided the need for actual detonations while keeping its deterrent credible.
A resumption of live testing, therefore, is neither technically necessary nor politically straightforward. The U.S. remains a signatory to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which outlaws all nuclear explosions. Reversing that decades-old moratorium would undermine a cornerstone of global non-proliferation and invite severe diplomatic backlash.
Still, Trump’s ambiguity has sparked debate within his own political ranks. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth defended “resuming testing” as a “responsible” move to ensure deterrence, while critics warned that such rhetoric risks emboldening hardliners in rival states. Senator Tom Cotton hailed Trump’s approach as sending “a strong message of resolve,” but others cautioned that it could dangerously normalise talk of nuclear use.
Global reaction and renewed tension
Reactions abroad were swift. The Kremlin denied any link between its recent missile demonstrations and nuclear detonations, with spokesman Dmitry Peskov stressing that Russia’s drills “cannot in any way be interpreted as a nuclear test.” China urged the US to “earnestly abide” by the global testing ban, while Japan’s atomic-bomb survivors group Nihon Hidankyo issued a letter of protest, calling Trump’s move “utterly unacceptable.”
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres reiterated that “nuclear testing can never be permitted under any circumstances,” warning that any breach could erode global arms-control regimes already under stress.
Iran, whose nuclear facilities were bombed under Trump’s earlier orders, called the directive “regressive and irresponsible,” accusing Washington of hypocrisy for “demonizing Iran’s peaceful nuclear program” while considering its own tests.
The danger of rhetorical escalation
Nagy cautions that even rhetorical hints of testing can have serious consequences. “A resumption of nuclear testing would risk triggering a destabilising chain reaction,” he said. “Moscow and Beijing could use it as justification for their own demonstrative tests, and North Korea might follow suit for technical gains.”
Such escalation would further erode the already fragile consensus behind the CTBT, particularly after Russia withdrew its ratification last year. The danger lies not only in the act itself but in the normalisation of testing talk, what Nagy calls the “casualisation of nuclear discourse.”
A perilous mix of politics and nuclear fog
As analysts note, nuclear deterrence has always contained a measure of ambiguity. But Trump’s public confusion between warheads and missiles underscores a deeper concern, the risk of strategic miscommunication in an era of volatile leadership.
“Deterrence can tolerate ambiguity, but it cannot survive incoherence,” one former Pentagon official observed. “When the world’s most heavily armed nuclear power sends mixed signals, others will prepare for the worst.”
For now, Trump’s nuclear remarks appear more rhetorical than operational yet their implications are far from harmless. In a world already navigating great-power rivalries, collapsing arms-control treaties, and rising nuclear modernisation, even a few careless words from a US president can sound alarm bells across continents.
With inputs from agencies