Nuclear testing back in discussion after Trump’s recent comments

New details are emerging following President Donald Trump’s recent remarks suggesting the United States may resume certain forms of nuclear weapons testing. The comments, made shortly before his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, raised questions about whether the U.S. might end its 33-year halt on underground nuclear detonations.

Speaking aboard Air Force One, Trump was asked whether he meant that the U.S. would restart underground nuclear explosions. He did not offer specifics, saying only, “You’ll find out very soon. But we’re going to do some testing. Other countries do it. If they’re going to do it, we’re going to do it.” The statement appeared directed at major nuclear rivals Russia and China.

No Immediate Plans for Live Nuclear Explosions

The U.S. already conducts tests on nuclear delivery systems, such as missiles and warhead components, but these do not involve actual nuclear blasts. Energy Secretary Chris Wright later clarified in a television interview that any new testing under discussion would not currently include live nuclear detonations.

The United States legally retains the authority to conduct underground nuclear tests if necessary. While the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty prohibits atmospheric, underwater, and space-based nuclear testing, it does allow underground tests. The U.S., Russia, and China are all signatories.

However, such tests have become rare. Apart from North Korea, which has carried out several tests in recent decades, most nations have either halted or sharply reduced detonations. India and Pakistan conducted underground nuclear tests in the late 1990s during the development of their nuclear arsenals.

The CTBT: Signed, Not Ratified

The 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) would ban all nuclear explosions globally. The United States signed the treaty, but the Senate has never ratified it, leaving the U.S. free to retain the option of testing. Several administrations have maintained that fully renouncing the right to test could risk national security.

Russia withdrew its ratification of the CTBT in 2023, putting it in a similar legal position to the United States. Both nations say they will not conduct tests unless the other acts first.

When Could Testing Be Considered Necessary?

Retired Air Force Lieutenant General Mark Weatherington, former deputy commander of U.S. Global Strike Command, noted that the U.S. conducted over 1,000 nuclear tests between the 1940s and 1992. He said that vast data archives and advanced computer simulations allow scientists to evaluate weapon reliability without detonating them.

However, the U.S. nuclear arsenal is currently undergoing modernization, and both Russia and China are expanding or updating their own systems. Weatherington said that if questions arose about reliability or if new designs required validation, testing might become a consideration.

If resumed, tests would most likely occur in long-regulated areas of the Nevada or New Mexico desert.

Strategic Benefits and Potential Risks

Supporters of renewed testing argue it could:

Provide updated scientific data

Confirm reliability of aging warheads

Reinforce deterrence against rivals

But analysts caution that new U.S. testing could trigger an international response. Russia or China might accelerate their own programs. Nations on the nuclear threshold, such as Iran, could interpret testing as a sign that global norms are weakening.

“It’s unclear how foreign governments will read these signals,” said Daniel Schaub, a political science instructor at the University of Nebraska. “Even small misunderstandings between nuclear powers can have large consequences.”

International Reaction

Russia responded by emphasizing that it has not resumed nuclear detonations but warned that it could reconsider its stance if the U.S. does. China urged Washington to maintain the global moratorium to avoid renewed global tensions.

A Debate Reopened

For now, U.S. officials insist live nuclear detonations are not planned. But Trump’s comments have reopened long-dormant debates about deterrence, modernization, and the balance between strategic readiness and international stability.

As experts note, the discussion may reflect broader uncertainty in a shifting global nuclear landscape — one where communication, perception, and signaling can be as consequential as the weapons themselves.