On 30 October, shortly before meeting the Chinese president Xi, Trump posted yet another disruptive ‘truth’ on his social media platform. However, unlike the previous few months, this disruption had less to do with trade or tariffs but with the most destructive weapons ever built. Raising concerns about nuclear testing undertaken by China and Russia, Trump announced that he had ‘instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis.’ From Beijing to Moscow, and from Washington to Brussels, Trump’s nuclear asseveration caused concern and confusion among nuclear experts and officials alike.
I argue that, despite Trump subsequently doubling down on nuclear testing, the US is highly unlikely to resume explosive testing after a self-imposed moratorium of more than 30 years. The greatest resistance to any move towards testing would come not from China or Russia — which may actually stand to benefit — but from the south-western states of Nevada and Utah, which have historically suffered because of nuclear explosive testing. It is more likely that the US would resort to aggressive non-critical testing of associated nuclear systems and delivery platforms to complement its ongoing arsenal modernisation process.
Unpacking Trump’s nuclear sabre-rattling
Doubling down on his Truth Social post, Trump further engaged in nuclear sabre-rattling in an interview with CBS News on 31 October. Trump claimed that Russia, China, North Korea and Pakistan have been secretly testing nuclear weapons deep underground, and that the US, despite having the “best” nuclear weapons, had to test its own if other players were doing so.
In the days following Trump’s announcement, analysts and commentators posited various theories explaining the motivation for Trump claims. One theory grounded Trump’s statements in the Russian testing of a cruise missile which could not just carry nuclear weapons, but also be powered by nuclear energy. Another theory emphasised the timing of Trump’s initial nuclear post which was made before meeting China’s Xi. According to this account, Trump wanted to convey a strongman image before yielding to Xi in their subsequent dealings. It is also possible that Trump did receive credible intelligence from his agencies about non-zero yield nuclear tests being carried out by China or Russia.
Explaining Beijing and Moscow’s response
Although both Moscow and Beijing denied Trump’s accusations of secretly testing nuclear weapons, any nuclear explosive testing undertaken by the US would be likely to prompt both Russia and China to resume testing as well. President Putin has already indicated as much following Trump’s announcement.
However, the biggest advantage of any resumption in nuclear testing would accrue to China, and not the US. This is because historically, before instituting their respective (effective) moratoriums in 1992, 1990 and 1996, the US conducted 1,054 tests, Russia (formerly Soviet Union) conducted 715 and China conducted only 47 nuclear tests.
Given Beijing’s comparatively low number of tests, as Heather Williams from the Center for Strategic and International Studies argues, ‘China would stand to gain the most in terms of weapons design and warhead information’. Hence, even as Trump's announcement would trouble nuclear experts and activists globally, Moscow and Beijing would (literally) weaponise the opportunity to conduct more explosive testing after a lull of about 30 years.
Resistance from within and the likely nuclear path
It would not only be arms control experts and nuclear disarmament activists who are concerned about the resumption of testing. The biggest resistance — and the key reason the US is unlikely to conduct explosive testing — would come from within the country itself.
In the 1950s, the US conducted overground nuclear explosive testing at the infamous Nevada Test Site (now called Nevada National Security Site). These tests not only impacted the health of the population in the US state of Nevada, but also ‘downwinders’ in the neighbouring state of Utah who were recipients of enhanced radiation fallout. Joseph L. Lyon, a US scientist who researched the health impact in the US, documented the following in a 1999 paper: ‘Children born in southern Utah between 1951-1958 experienced 2.44 as many deaths from leukemia as children born before and after above-ground bomb testing.’
But as Lyon further demonstrates, US nuclear machinery, across successive administrations, spent decades suppressing information about the adverse health impacts of the tests. Resumption of testing is therefore only bound to lead to opposition from the states of Nevada and Utah and their residents. Such is the level of distrust that even before resumption of any testing, a group of senators and congress representatives from Nevada have already written to Trump expressing their ‘outrage and unequivocal opposition’ to resumption of nuclear testing.
Even if the US decides to conduct only underground explosive testing to limit atmospheric fallout, concerns about environmental and health impact would not be completely allayed. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, underground testing can also cause contamination of land, underground water and occasionally even ‘accidental leakage of radionuclides into the air’.
It is likely, then, that the US would conduct only “non-critical explosions”, as Energy Secretary Chris Wright — who would be responsible for overseeing nuclear testing — clarified after the furore over Trump’s claims. The US is currently in the midst of modernising its nuclear weapons programme at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. Rather than resuming explosive testing, the US may resort to aggressive non-critical testing of associated nuclear systems and delivery platforms to complement its arsenal modernisation process.
(Lokendra Sharma is a staff research analyst with the Takshashila Institution’s High-Tech Geopolitics Programme.)
Views are personal, and do not represent the stance of this publication.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
