US President Donald Trump’s announcement that he had directed the Pentagon to resume nuclear weapons tests has created a storm of confusion, and invited strong criticism from political and military officials, as well as by outside observers.
Experts warned that even the smallest amount of inaccuracies in such statements could have potentially disastrous ramifications, as all nuclear rhetoric is scrutinised down to the last detail.
In a post on Truth Social earlier, Trump claimed that Washington had “more nukes than any other country” and had completed its modernisation programme, alleging that China could be capable of matching the US’ nuclear strength “within five years”.
All his claims were misleading, with analysts pointing out that it was Russia who has the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world, noting that his claims on completion on modernisation were also incorrect.
The advancement programme – dealing with everything from navigational capabilities, warheads, tracking, and all supporting infrastructure – was still ongoing, and not likely to be completed anytime soon, likely carrying on well into the 2030s, as per Axios.
As for China, while it is true that its arsenal is expanding at a far faster rate than before, it is lagging behind substantially and is unlikely to possess an inventory remotely close to that of Washington and Moscow.
“By no calculation can they be considered a nuclear peer,” said Jon Wolfsthal, director of global risk at the Federation of American Scientists.
The most alarming part of Trump’s statement came when he declared that he had “instructed the Department of War to start testing our nuclear weapons on an equal basis,” in response to alleged nuclear tests conducted by Russia and China.
This will be a first for the US in decades, given that Washington has not carried out a full-scale nuclear test since 1992.
While Beijing hasn’t conducted any nuclear tests of late, but is rather only expanding its arsenal, Moscow has denied that its newly developed Burevestnik cruise missile constituted a nuclear test – noting that while it was capable of being armed with a nuclear warhead, and used nuclear propulsion – it was designed more as a tactical foil to NATO’s buildup along Russian borders.
Neither the White House nor the Pentagon has clarified what the president’s directive means in practice.
Trump’s statement also added new uncertainty to an already fragile arms control landscape, with experts warning that even rhetorical escalations could unsettle the global nuclear balance.
This was a reference to the poor condition of the New START treaty between Russia and the US, as it is set to expire by 2026, while weapons control dialogue between Washington and Moscow remains all but frozen.
The Energy Department, which oversees nuclear testing, has also remained silent. “I have not seen any technical reason why we need to test,” said Frank Rose, a former US assistant secretary for arms control.
“If I were advising the president, I would urge him to consider the global consequences — this is not merely a technical issue but a deeply geopolitical one.”
Washington’s nuclear overhaul – which predates the Trump administration – is already plagued by cost overruns and delays, deteriorating infrastructure, massive technological gaps, lack of workforce, and production centres, further compounding the already significant challenges.
The Congressional Budget Office projects that combined programmes under the Departments of Defence and Energy will cost nearly USD 946 billion between 2025 and 2034.
