Trump’s ill-considered nuclear decision

President Donald Trump is arguably the most controversial president in modern US history. However, it is not his personal chequered history (like past involvement with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein) or diplomatic disasters (unwarranted verbal browbeating of the Ukrainian President on 28 Feb 2025) that this article will discuss, but rather Trump's inexplicable authorisation for the Department of War to resume live testing of US nuclear warheads, a practice last done in 23 September 1992, more than 33 years ago. Despite the US Energy Secretary later downplaying the President's decree as excluding the explosion of whole warheads, one can never be sure what Trump will or won't do in a future crisis, so this article will assume a worst case scenario as originally interpreted.

Even as the potential release of documents concretely linking Trump to Epstein could disgrace the former's presidency, and the deterioration in relations between the Trump and Zelenskyy administrations would undoubtedly hamper Ukraine's defence against Russia, neither of these events have the destabilising potential of normalising nuclear test detonations across both established, new and aspiring nuclear powers. The following paragraphs will hopefully make this case clear.

Loss of moral authority for nuclear non-proliferation

Despite the fact that the US was the first nuclear armed power and will probably never militarily denuclearise, it is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which morally obligates Washington to eventually relinquish nuclear arms, and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) which prohibits nuclear detonation tests and which the US is principally meant to abide by. Hence with President Trump's ill-conceived decision to resume nuclear tests, he is unilaterally relinquishing America's de facto leadership of the global nuclear non-proliferation movement. While the world was arguably prepared to accept Washinton's denuclearisation policies vis-a-vis North Korea and Iran, while de facto accepting the US's permanent nuclear arsenal since it was the world only hyper-power , that moral leadership is now irrevocably shattered. Trump's impulsive attempt at nuclear sabre rattling would be the ultimate demonstration of "do as I say, not as I do". If his administration ever expresses opposition to future North Korea or Iranian nuclear testing or nuclear munitions development progress respectively, Pyongyang or Tehran could easily highlight "American Hypocrisy", which would then win them sympathy, if not concrete aid from anti-US factions within the global south. Moreover, even if a future US administration were to abrogate Trump's nuclear testing authorisation, thereby returning to a no testing policy, the world would always be wary that US nuclear policy is unstable and dependant on the temperament of the sitting president.

Greater likelihood of destabilisation and nuclear proliferation

As if on cue, soon after Trump freed the metaphorical nuclear testing genie, President Putin of Russian gave instructions that Russian nuclear warheads would also be tested in future. This sows the seeds for future brinksmanship between Moscow and Washington, and injects uncertainty into bilateral relations. With nuclear detonation testing as an option, this heightens the probability that future crises would escalate into catastrophes. For example, a US nuclear test intended to send a political message to Moscow would inevitably result in a reciprocal Russian test requiring a US response. If this response is intended to project resolve, such as a provocative deployment of ballistic missile submarines, the countermeasure by the Kremlin might lead to drastically bad outcomes for both Washington and Moscow unless one or both sides deescalated. The international arena already breeds enough instability as it is, it does not need an egotistical White House occupant to greatly exacerbate matters with a nuclear test triggered by petulance.

Concerning nuclear proliferation by new or aspiring nuclear powers, Trump's testing authorisation is an unexpected blessing as it allows them the de factopolitical cover argument to test more nuclear warheads or conduct a maiden test. Hence, for Pyongyang, it might conduct a 7th nuclear test which could unassailably prove that its miniaturised nuclear warheads for delivery atop missiles actually work or even that the Kim regime can fabricate hydrogen bombs far more powerful than its existing atomic arsenal. Regarding Iran, if Tehran ever succeeds in enriching enough weapons grade uranium, a nuclear test on Iranian soil will herald the introduction of the second nuclear capable state in the middle east, a prospect no one relishes. One suspects that Trump did not give much serious thought to the destabilisational impact of his nuclear sabre rattling.

The sheer pollutive effect of nuclear testing

Beyond the political costs, destabilisation potential and nuclear empowerment of rogue states, there is also the inescapable environmental costs of resumed nuclear tests wherever they take place.

Explosive nuclear tests emit radioactive particles (fallout) and create long-lived contaminants such as radioactive isotopes that bind to soil, sediments and biological matter; even underground tests can vent gases or contaminate groundwater if containment fails. These radionuclides persist for decades to millennia and are not confined to test ranges: measured inventories of fallout isotopes show clear, global patterns and detectable deposits far from test sites, meaning any return to large-scale testing would reintroduce radioactive fallout that travels regionally and globally.

The human and ecological consequences are well documented: radioactive iodine from past tests and accidents disproportionately increases thyroid cancer risk (especially in children), while longer-lived radionuclides raise chronic exposure and food-safety concerns for generations; ecosystems near test sites have suffered persistent contamination, and atmospheric transport means neighboring countries would share exposure and economic costs (agriculture, fisheries, public health). Given the technical, political, and economic hurdles to containment, restarting testing would create pollution the United States and its neighbors can ill afford -both in immediate public-health risks and in long-term environmental clean-up and monitoring burdens.

Trump should not have resorted to nuclear coercion

There is quite frankly, no need for the US to conduct live nuclear testing. Advanced computer simulations already suffice to verify warhead efficacy. Being a nuclear power requires restraint and the maturity to realise that nuclear arms exist not to be used, while threatening their use even indirectly via detonative tests is deeply frowned upon. It may be a forlorn hope but someone senior in the Pentagon or State Department needs to gently counsel Donald J Trump that nuclear policy and related statements need to be wisely and not petulantly handled.