Boom or Bust? Why Trump's Nuclear Test Revival is the Sanity Check We Can't Ignore, By Charles Taylor (Florida)

On October 30, 2025, President Trump dropped a bombshell (pun very intended): He's ordered the Pentagon to kick off nuclear testing "immediately," ending a 33-year dry spell since the U.S. last lit one up in 1992. The goal? Catch up to Russia and China, who aren't exactly sitting on their hands. Critics are howling, proliferation panic, arms race fever, but let's pump the brakes and probe this like a proper thought experiment. Spoiler: Resuming tests isn't just sensible; it's survival maths in a world that's outgrown the post-Cold War hug-fest. And while we're at it, why stop at testing? Building more, sharper nukes could tip the scales from shaky deterrence to ironclad peace-through-strength.

Flash back to 1992: The Soviet Union had crumbled, the Berlin Wall was confetti, and the U.S. unilaterally swore off explosive nuclear tests under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), a noble flex of "we're the good guys" optimism. Fast-forward to 2025, and that high ground looks like a sandcastle at high tide. Russia and China? They're sprinting ahead, modernising arsenals that dwarf our complacency.

Take Russia: The bear's got about 5,580 warheads (deployed and stored), accounting for nearly 90% of global nukes alongside Uncle Sam. Sure, their ICBM and bomber upgrades are chugging slower than planned, 95% modernised as of early 2025, but that's down from a blistering pace pre-Ukraine. Still, Putin's crew is rolling out hypersonic toys like the Avangard glide vehicle and Poseidon doomsday drone-sub, all while dangling New START extensions like a carrot on sanctions stick. And testing? They've conducted subcritical experiments and missile pops that skirt the edges of bans, keeping their edge razor-sharp. It's not bluster; it's a signal: Mess with us, and the unthinkable's on the table.

Then there's China, the wildcard. From a sleepy ~300 warheads in 2020, Beijing's ballooned to over 600 by mid-2025, with projections hitting 1,000 by 2030. That's not incremental; it's a silo-spree, 350 new ICBM holes in the desert, plus road-mobile launchers and bomber tweaks that scream "triad incoming." Xi's parade in September flexed five fresh missile types, from the DF-41 ICBM to sneaky hypersonics, all while issuing coy statements on "no first use" that ring hollow amid Taiwan sabre-rattling. China's not just expanding; they're engineering for asymmetry, fewer warheads, but smarter delivery to punch way above their weight.

In this multipolar mosh pit, U.S. deterrence relies on a credible "don't even think about it" stare-down. But if our arsenal's rusting on simulations while rivals test-drive upgrades, that stare turns squinty. Trump's move? A blunt reminder: Parity isn't optional; it's existential.

Enter the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP), Uncle Sam's post-1992 workaround: a $20B/year sci-fi lab fest of supercomputers, laser blasts (hi, National Ignition Facility), and subcritical tweaks to certify our ~3,700 warheads without full booms. It's wizardry, modelling fission chains in silicon that'd make Oppenheimer jealous, and it's kept the lights on for three decades.

But here's the rub: SSP's a Band-Aid, not a cure-all. It took 15 years to "mature," and even now, it can't fully mimic the exotic physics of a live detonation, think plutonium implosions under insane pressures that fry sensors and defy perfect prediction. Critics, including Heritage Foundation hawks, slam it for barring new designs, leaving us tweaking Cold War fossils instead of innovating. GAO audits flag "technical exceptions" in reliability, and Nature's 1997 takedown (still relevant) warned of competence erosion without tests.

Resuming tests? It's not reckless, it's rigorous. Real blasts validate models, spot age cracks in pits (plutonium hearts degrade after 20-30 years), and greenlight tweaks for safety (e.g., insensitive explosives that won't detonate if dropped). Trump wants "equal basis" testing, tit-for-tat with rivals, not a free-for-all. Hurdles abound (Nevada site's mothballed, costs millions, years to prep), but the alternative? Betting Armageddon on code alone. Sensible? In a world where miscalculation kills millions, it's the only sane bet.

Testing's the appetiser; the main course is modernisation. Our arsenal's aging, B-52s from Eisenhower's era, Minuteman III missiles pushing 60. Why not crank production for more warheads and sleeker designs? Russia and China are: Moscow's churning Borei subs and Sarmat mega-missiles; Beijing's silo-farming like it's peak Mao. U.S. lag? That's inviting adventurism, think a bolder Putin in the Baltics or Xi eyeing Taipei, figuring our bluff's busted.

More nukes mean redundancy: Extra warheads hedge against failures or strikes, ensuring second-strike survivability. Better ones? Low-yield options (like the scrapped W76-2 revival) for "escalate to de-escalate" scenarios, precise pops that deter without city-smashers. Hypersonics, stealth bombers (B-21 incoming), and AI-sims could make ours untouchable, flipping the script from mutual suicide to "try me."

This isn't arms race roulette; it's controlled escalation. SIPRI's 2025 Yearbook warns of a "dangerous new nuclear arms race" without controls; better we lead the dance than trip behind. Arms control? Ideal, but Russia's New START waffling and China's "no limits" pact with Moscow say talks are DOA. Prudent build-up buys leverage for future treaties.

Naysayers cry "proliferation!" — tests could spark a global boom, eroding the taboo. Fair, but the U.S. has led non-proliferation (NPT, anyone?) for decades; rivals cheat anyway (North Korea's bangs, Iran's whispers). And CTBT? It's toothless, Russia pulled verification in 2023.

Environmentally? Modern tests are cleaner than '50s firecrackers, with yields dialled low. Ethically? Deterrence's ugly maths has kept the peace since '45, better maintained than mythologised.

Trump's test thaw isn't bravado; it's a recalibration for a rival-rich reality. Russia and China's nuclear glow-ups demand we match, test to trust our tools, build to back our bark. Lagging invites the very fires we fear. Let's upgrade the deterrent, not dismantle it. Peace through parsed parity, boom goes the dynamite of doubt.

https://thespectator.com/topic/is-trump-right-to-resume-nuclear-weapons-testing/