With last nuclear treaty gone, Trump considers expanding arsenal and resuming tests

With last nuclear treaty gone, Trump considers expanding arsenal and resuming tests

• New START treaty between US and Russia has expired, ending warhead limits.
• US may increase deployed nuclear weapons and consider resuming nuclear testing.
• Potential moves could trigger renewed nuclear competition with Russia and China.

Did our AI summary help?

The expiration of the last remaining nuclear arms control treaty between the United States and Russia has opened a new and uncertain chapter in global security. Within days, senior officials in the Trump administration signalled that Washington is weighing two major steps: increasing the number of deployed nuclear weapons and potentially resuming some form of nuclear testing.

For nearly four decades, successive US presidents kept the size of the deployed arsenal stable or moving downward. The last explosive US nuclear test took place in 1992. If President Trump moves ahead on both fronts, it would mark the most significant shift in American nuclear policy since the end of the Cold War, the New York Times reported.

What changed when New START expired

The New START treaty, which capped deployed strategic nuclear warheads at roughly 1,550 each for the United States and Russia, formally expired this week. President Vladimir Putin had offered an informal extension while negotiations for a new framework took place, but President Trump declined.

Administration officials argue that the treaty placed unacceptable limits on Washington while failing to address newer categories of weapons developed by Russia and China. They also contend that any future agreement must include China, whose nuclear arsenal has been expanding rapidly.

In a speech in Geneva, a senior State Department official said the United States is now free to “strengthen deterrence,” including by expanding forces and drawing on nondeployed weapons in storage if the president directs it.

More warheads at sea?

One immediate option under discussion involves the US Navy’s Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines. Under New START, four missile tubes on each submarine were disabled to comply with treaty limits. With the treaty gone, the Navy can reactivate those tubes.

That step alone could allow the deployment of hundreds of additional warheads across the fleet. Officials have not said whether or when that move will happen, but planning is reportedly underway.

Supporters say such deployments would restore flexibility and bargaining power. Critics warn they could prompt Russia and China to accelerate their own buildup.

The question of nuclear testing

The second, more controversial issue is nuclear testing. President Trump has previously said the United States should test “on an equal basis” with China and Russia.

There are two possible interpretations. One is a return to full-scale underground nuclear detonations like those conducted during the Cold War. Those tests create detectable seismic waves and would clearly break with decades of restraint.

The other possibility involves smaller, low-yield or specially contained tests designed to avoid detectable shock waves. US officials have suggested that China may have conducted such concealed tests in recent years, though global monitoring networks have not publicly confirmed any explosion on the dates cited.

Experts say even limited testing would be a major departure from the long-standing global norm under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty framework, which aims for a “zero-yield” standard.

Leverage or arms race?

The central question is whether these signals are part of a negotiating strategy or the start of a genuine expansion.

During the Cold War, nuclear buildups were often used as leverage to push adversaries toward arms control talks. Some analysts believe the administration may be seeking a broader, three-way agreement that includes China.

But there is no guarantee that Beijing or Moscow will respond by negotiating. China has historically resisted arms control discussions, arguing that its arsenal remains far smaller than those of the United States and Russia.

If each side moves to expand without a new framework in place, the world could enter a period of renewed nuclear competition.

For now, the administration has outlined scenarios but offered few specifics. That ambiguity leaves allies, adversaries and arms control experts watching closely, unsure whether this is high-stakes bargaining or the beginning of a new nuclear era.