Trump drops Bombshell as US to start Nuclear Testing after 30 years Azad News HD
Trump’s Call to Resume Nuclear Testing: A Dangerous Turn Toward a New Global Arms Race
In a stunning and controversial declaration that has sent shockwaves across global capitals, United States President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. would resume nuclear weapons testing for the first time in more than three decades. The statement — made during a press briefing at the White House — instantly reignited fears of a new global arms race and sparked outrage from non-proliferation advocates, foreign governments, and even members of the U.S. Congress. Experts warn that the decision could undo decades of painstaking diplomatic progress toward curbing the spread and development of nuclear weapons, pushing the world closer to a dangerous precipice.
The Announcement That Shook the World
President Trump’s remarks came unexpectedly during a press conference addressing U.S.–China relations and global security. “We must ensure the strength and readiness of our nuclear arsenal,” Trump said. “The world needs to know that the United States will not allow its deterrence to weaken. We will begin preparations to resume nuclear testing immediately.”
The statement marked a dramatic reversal of long-standing U.S. policy. Since 1992, the United States has observed a moratorium on nuclear testing under the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), even though the treaty itself has never been ratified by the U.S. Senate. Instead, America’s nuclear reliability has been maintained through sophisticated computer simulations and subcritical tests that do not produce nuclear explosions.
Trump, however, dismissed those measures as “outdated and insufficient,” claiming that adversaries such as Russia, China, and North Korea have already violated the spirit of the CTBT by conducting low-yield or covert nuclear tests. “We cannot sit idle while others cheat,” he asserted. “If others are testing, so will we.”
Historical Context: From the Cold War to the Testing Ban
The United States conducted its first nuclear test, Trinity, in July 1945, paving the way for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that ended World War II. Over the next five decades, the U.S. carried out more than 1,000 nuclear tests, both atmospheric and underground — more than any other country. These tests not only advanced military capabilities but also left lasting scars on human health and the environment, particularly in areas like Nevada, the Marshall Islands, and the Pacific.
The Cold War saw an intense arms race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, with both sides striving for nuclear supremacy. However, growing global outrage over radioactive fallout and the threat of annihilation led to diplomatic efforts to curb nuclear testing. The Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) of 1963 prohibited tests in the atmosphere, outer space, and underwater, followed by decades of negotiation culminating in the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996.
Although the U.S. signed the CTBT, it was never ratified by the Senate. Nonetheless, Washington has adhered to a voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing — a stance maintained by every president, Republican or Democrat, for more than 30 years. Trump’s decision marks the first serious departure from that bipartisan consensus.
Global Reaction: Outrage, Fear, and Alarm
The announcement triggered immediate condemnation from governments around the world. The United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres expressed “profound concern,” urging the United States to reconsider the decision and warning that such an action could “undo decades of progress toward nuclear disarmament.”
Russia, one of America’s chief nuclear rivals, denounced the move as “a reckless provocation.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated, “If the U.S. resumes nuclear testing, Russia will be forced to respond appropriately to protect its national security.” China echoed similar sentiments, calling the announcement “a grave threat to international stability.”
European allies, too, reacted with unease. France, the United Kingdom, and Germany jointly issued a statement urging restraint and reaffirming their commitment to the CTBT. “Nuclear testing is a relic of a dangerous past,” the statement read. “Its resumption by any nation would be a betrayal of the global non-proliferation regime.”
Even within the United States, the decision has sparked deep divisions. Prominent members of Congress, including both Democrats and Republicans, criticized the move as unnecessary and destabilizing. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California), who has long championed nuclear arms control, called the idea “reckless and irresponsible,” while Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) said that “restarting nuclear testing would make America less safe, not more.”
Expert Warnings: A Step Toward a New Nuclear Arms Race
Nuclear experts and policy analysts have been quick to warn that resuming nuclear testing could lead to catastrophic consequences for global security. Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear policy specialist at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, stated, “This is not just about one test. It’s about signaling to the world that the nuclear taboo — the moral and political barrier against nuclear explosions — no longer exists.”
For decades, the absence of nuclear tests has served as an informal restraint, helping to prevent an all-out arms race. Once one nation breaks that norm, others may follow suit. Analysts warn that Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and even North Korea could use Trump’s move as justification to conduct new tests, advancing their arsenals and undermining decades of arms control efforts.
Dr. Nina Tannenwald, author of The Nuclear Taboo, explained, “Nuclear testing is more than a technical exercise. It’s a symbolic act that normalizes the use and development of nuclear weapons. Once that line is crossed, we risk erasing the moral stigma that has kept nuclear weapons unused since 1945.”
The Pentagon’s Position: Readiness or Provocation?
Inside the Pentagon, reactions have been mixed. While some military officials privately support the idea of renewed testing as a way to ensure reliability and deterrence, others caution that the risks far outweigh the benefits.
A senior defense official, speaking anonymously to major media outlets, said, “Our current stockpile is safe, secure, and effective. We have advanced computer models, supercomputers, and simulation facilities that give us precise data. There is no technical need to resume explosive testing.”
Critics argue that the call to resume testing is more political than strategic. Trump’s administration has long sought to project “strength” on the world stage, often rejecting arms control agreements it viewed as constraints on American power. From withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 2019 to exiting the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA), Trump’s foreign policy has consistently favored unilateral action over multilateral cooperation.
Domestic Politics and Trump’s Calculations
Many observers see Trump’s announcement as part of a broader political strategy aimed at energizing his base and reinforcing his image as a tough leader who rejects what he perceives as global “weakness.” By framing nuclear testing as a matter of national security, Trump appeals to voters who value military dominance and distrust international institutions.
However, this approach also risks alienating moderates and fueling domestic opposition. Environmentalists, peace activists, and scientists have united in opposition, arguing that nuclear testing would endanger both public health and the planet.
In Nevada — site of many historical nuclear tests — local leaders have vowed to resist any attempts to restart operations. “Our communities still suffer from the legacy of radioactive fallout,” said U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto. “We will not allow history to repeat itself.”
Environmental and Human Health Consequences
Beyond geopolitics, the potential resumption of nuclear testing carries grave environmental and humanitarian implications. Past tests released enormous amounts of radiation into the atmosphere and groundwater, contaminating ecosystems and causing long-term health effects such as cancer, birth defects, and genetic damage.
The Nevada Test Site, where the U.S. conducted over 900 nuclear tests between 1951 and 1992, remains contaminated in parts, with radioactive isotopes persisting in soil and water. Indigenous communities, particularly the Western Shoshone Nation, have long fought for recognition and compensation for the damage inflicted on their lands.
Dr. Helen Caldicott, a renowned anti-nuclear activist, warned, “Resuming testing is not only reckless but immoral. Every test releases poison into the environment that lasts for millennia. It’s not just a political act — it’s an assault on humanity and the Earth.”
Environmental groups such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club have pledged to launch nationwide campaigns against the decision. In a joint statement, they declared, “Nuclear testing belongs to the darkest chapters of human history. To reopen that chapter would be an act of collective madness.”
International Law and Treaty Obligations
The Trump administration’s move also raises serious legal questions. While the United States never ratified the CTBT, it remains a signatory and is therefore bound by the treaty’s object and purpose — which is to end nuclear testing permanently. Under international law, actions that defeat the purpose of a treaty signed by a nation are considered violations, even if the treaty has not entered into force.
UN disarmament chief Izumi Nakamitsu noted, “If the United States resumes testing, it would undermine not only the CTBT but the entire global disarmament architecture. It could trigger reciprocal actions and erode trust between nuclear and non-nuclear states.”
Furthermore, many experts fear that other nuclear-armed nations will use Washington’s decision as justification to resume their own programs. India and Pakistan, which have not signed the CTBT, could use this moment to conduct new tests, potentially escalating tensions in South Asia. North Korea, which conducted six nuclear tests between 2006 and 2017, might also seize the opportunity to reassert itself.
The Science Behind Modern Nuclear Testing
Proponents of renewed testing argue that decades without full-scale detonations could jeopardize the reliability of the U.S. arsenal. They claim that simulations, while sophisticated, cannot fully replicate the physical realities of a nuclear explosion.
However, the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has repeatedly affirmed that America’s nuclear weapons remain reliable thanks to the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP), which uses advanced computer modeling, material science, and subcritical experiments to maintain the arsenal without explosions.
Dr. Siegfried Hecker, former director of Los Alamos National Laboratory, stated, “There is no technical reason to resume testing. Our understanding of nuclear physics is deeper than ever. The only reason to test now would be political — not scientific.”
A Global Cascade: The Risk of Copycats
History shows that nuclear developments rarely occur in isolation. If the United States resumes testing, it could trigger a domino effect across the globe.
Russia and China might follow suit to validate new warhead designs. India could use it to justify further modernization of its arsenal, prompting Pakistan to respond in kind. Even non-nuclear nations might reconsider their security policies, fearing a world where nuclear powers act without restraint.
This cascade would effectively dismantle the fragile non-proliferation regime built since the Cold War. As former U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry warned, “Once testing resumes, the door to a new nuclear arms race swings wide open — and it may never close again.”
The Moral Argument: Learning Nothing from History
For many, the decision symbolizes a deeper moral failure — the inability of humankind to learn from its past. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 remain the most devastating reminders of nuclear horror, killing over 200,000 people and leaving generations scarred.
In Hiroshima, the city’s mayor, Kazumi Matsui, condemned Trump’s announcement, saying, “This decision dishonors the memory of those who died. The world swore ‘never again’ after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To resume testing is to betray that promise.”
The survivors, known as hibakusha, have expressed despair at the idea of renewed nuclear detonations. One survivor, 92-year-old Keiko Ogura, said, “We thought the world had moved beyond this madness. I fear for the young people who may face what we endured.”
Diplomatic Fallout and Future Scenarios
In the coming months, the United States could face diplomatic isolation if it proceeds with nuclear testing. Many nations may push for sanctions, while adversaries could exploit the move to justify their own weapons programs.
Some analysts predict that this may trigger a new wave of global protests reminiscent of the 1980s anti-nuclear movement. Peace activists are already organizing demonstrations in Washington, New York, and European capitals, demanding Congress block funding for nuclear tests.
The U.S. Congress retains power over budget appropriations, and several lawmakers have introduced bills seeking to prohibit funds for explosive nuclear testing. The outcome of this legislative battle could determine whether Trump’s declaration becomes a policy reality or remains political theater.
Conclusion: A Return to the Edge
President Trump’s decision to resume nuclear testing represents more than a single policy shift — it’s a fundamental turning point in the modern world’s relationship with nuclear weapons. For over three decades, the absence of testing symbolized restraint, cooperation, and the shared hope of a world moving away from the brink. To reverse that progress now risks unleashing forces that no government can fully control.
The stakes are monumental. A single nuclear test could spark retaliation, mistrust, and a cascade of actions that unravel global security. As the doomsday clock ticks ever closer to midnight, the world faces a stark choice: return to the era of fear and fire, or reaffirm the fragile but vital commitment to peace and disarmament.
