U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent order to resume his country’s nuclear weapons testing program has reopened the door to a new and potentially dangerous chapter in global military competition — one that could reshape the world’s strategic balance, especially amid escalating rivalry with Russia and China.
The announcement has left experts and governments puzzled, trying to interpret what the American president truly meant when he declared that, “because of the testing programs being conducted by other countries, I’ve directed the Department of War to begin testing our nuclear weapons on an equal footing.”
Speaking later to journalists, Trump elaborated that Washington’s two main rivals — “China and Russia — seem to be conducting nuclear tests, so if they’re doing them, I think we’ll do them too.”
Both Beijing and Moscow rushed to respond.
China urged the United States to “seriously honour its commitments under the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT),” while Russia insisted that its latest test of a nuclear-powered cruise missile did not constitute a nuclear detonation.
Trying to Decode Trump’s Intentions
To make sense of Trump’s words, two senior defence experts interviewed by Agence France-Presse proposed three main possibilities — ranging from a reaction to Russia’s recent military innovations to a possible signal of future full-scale testing, which could drag the world into a new nuclear age.
According to Éloïse Fayet, a deterrence researcher at the French Institute for International Relations (IFRI):
“Either he’s referring to missile tests — which the U.S. already conducts — or to what we call sub-critical tests, but I doubt he understands the technical distinctions that precisely. Or he means actual nuclear explosions, but no one has done that in decades except North Korea, which carried out six tests between 2006 and 2017.”
A Response to Russian Tests
Former NATO nuclear-non-proliferation director William Alberque told AFP he initially thought Trump’s remarks were a reaction to Russia’s announcements about new systems such as the Burevestnik nuclear cruise missile and the Poseidon nuclear-powered torpedo.
“At first, I interpreted his comments as referring to testing delivery systems, not warheads,” Alberque said.
That hypothesis seems limited, however, because the United States — like every other nuclear power — already tests its weapons systems regularly.
Just weeks earlier, Washington launched four Trident ballistic missiles from a submarine as part of routine deterrence exercises.
Yet Trump’s later statements to the media prompted experts to consider other, more serious possibilities.
The “Sub-Critical” Tests
The United States, Russia, and China do not follow identical rules regarding the scope of the nuclear-test ban.
Washington generally applies stricter standards than its competitors when conducting so-called “sub-critical” experiments — limited tests that do not cause a self-sustaining nuclear reaction and are therefore permitted under the CTBT.
Fayet explains:
“The treaty bans any test that releases a certain threshold of nuclear energy. We’re fairly certain Russia and China conduct sub-critical tests that release some energy but remain technically legal. The U.S., however, conducts even more restrictive versions that involve no heat, no chain reaction, and no energy release.”
Alberque adds that detecting Russia’s or China’s minor underground experiments is extremely difficult:
“They build an underground chamber inside another chamber — a kind of double-encasement — which makes it almost impossible to identify small explosions from the surface.”
Trump may be seeking to match those capabilities to claim parity, but Fayet doubts he grasps the nuance:
“It’s a very complex matter, and I’m not sure he’s capable of such technical precision.”
Resuming Full-Scale Testing
The third and most alarming scenario is the actual resumption of explosive nuclear tests.
Fayet notes that Trump’s political base has long supported restarting testing, even though the scientific value is marginal, since the United States already possesses advanced computer simulation programs to maintain its arsenal.
The powerful Heritage Foundation, a think tank closely aligned with Trump, stated in January that “America must be prepared to test its nuclear weapons.”
According to Fayet:
“The only real benefit would be political — to pressure Moscow and Beijing into new trilateral arms-control talks — since the existing international framework is collapsing. The last remaining treaty between Washington and Moscow, New START, expires in February.”
Such a move would carry immense risks. Moscow and Beijing are watching carefully, ready to mirror any American action.
Russian President Vladimir Putin warned back in 2023:
“We know that some figures in Washington are already studying the possibility of real nuclear tests. If the United States does it, we will do the same.”
A Step Toward a More Dangerous World
Should Washington move forward, the consequences would extend far beyond deterrence theory.
The moral dimension of such testing — amid ongoing wars, global injustice, and the erosion of international treaties — would highlight once again how major powers claim the right to arm while preaching restraint to others.
For much of the world, especially in the Global South and the Muslim world, this episode reinforces a familiar truth:
that the same powers calling for peace often undermine it through arrogance and double standards.
If the U.S. resumes testing, it could mark the end of the nuclear restraint era and usher humanity into a new age of militarised brinkmanship — one defined not by justice or balance, but by the pursuit of dominance at any cost.
