To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
As corporate influence grows, independent journalism is more important than ever. If you value reporting that puts people and the planet first, please support Common Dreams this Giving Tuesday. We couldn't do it without you—thank you for keeping independent journalism alive.
The decision would undermine continued strategic stability and risks triggering a disastrous arms race.
President Donald Trump’s October 29 announcement that the United States will restart nuclear weapons testing after more than 30 years marks a dangerous turning point in international security.
The decision lacks technical justification and appears solely driven by geopolitical posturing.
Trump’s declaration comes after months of nuclear threats. The president ordered the moving of nuclear submarines to Russia’s shores back in August and again in October 2025. Just hours before meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea, Trump declared that “because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis.”
It is not clear what he means, since other countries are not nuclear testing, but if the US goes forward with it, such testing would end a moratorium that has been in place since 1992. There is also a question about whether he is calling for the resumption of nuclear explosive testing (conducted by the Department of Energy) or testing nuclear-capable weapons (conducted by the Pentagon).
Nevertheless the decision would threaten continued strategic stability and risks triggering a disastrous arms race.
Trump’s announcement follows Russia’s October 21 test of the Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile in the Novaya Zemlya archipelago in the Arctic. According to Russia’s Chief of General Staff Valery Gerasimov, the missile was airborne for 15 hours and traveled 14,000 kilometers.
This context of the Russian test is crucial, but Russia did not detonate a nuclear weapon. This test, like Russia’s the test of the Poseidon nuclear-powered torpedo a week later, involved nuclear-powered delivery systems, and are considered nuclear-capable, but do not constitute a nuclear weapons test. Russia hasn’t conducted a nuclear weapons test since 1990. While these new delivery systems are worrying, they do not constitute a resumption of nuclear testing of the kind that Trump now proposes.
Resuming nuclear testing isn’t just a bargaining chip. It’s a gamble that risks undoing decades of restraint, and the world could be a lot less stable because of it.
The timing of President Trump’s announcement could not be worse for nuclear arms control. The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the last agreement limiting US and Russian nuclear weapons, expires in February 2026. For over a decade, New START has kept a cap on deployed warheads and compelled both sides to transparency through data exchanges and inspections. If this agreement expires, there would be no binding limits on the two countries’ nuclear arsenals.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said in September 2025 that Moscow would be willing to extend New START’s quantitative limits for a year, as long as Washington reciprocates and “does not take steps that undermine or violate the existing balance of deterrence potentials.” President Trump called Putin’s proposal “a good idea.” Now, with this move to resume testing, Trump is threatening the global nuclear balance.
Russia will not take this lightly. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov warned in October 2025 that “if a country with the capability makes the erroneous decision to conduct nuclear tests, and Washington is clearly in our focus, then we will retaliate immediately.” Putin echoed the same sentiment that Moscow would respond to nuclear tests.
China has been building up its nuclear arsenal, doubling from about 300 warheads in 2020 to around 600 in 2025. Beijing’s proposed 15th Five Year Plan links deterrence to “global strategic balance and stability.” However, Beijing hasn’t tested a nuclear weapon since 1996. China’s 2025 Victory Day parade rolled out five missile systems that could hit the US mainland. American analysts believe China could have over 1,000 warheads by 2030. Still, growing the arsenal and upgrading missiles isn’t the same as explosive nuclear testing.
China maintains that it won’t break its moratorium on nuclear tests and supports the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, even though it hasn’t ratified it. In October 2025, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun called China a “responsible nuclear-armed state” and reaffirmed the pledge. Now, Trump’s decision puts China in a tight spot: Stick to restraint while the US challenges international norms or initiate its own testing program to keep up.
Trump’s move looks like another round of “escalate to deescalate”: the idea that ramping up the threat forces rivals to come to the table on US terms. However, resuming nuclear testing isn’t just a bargaining chip. It’s a gamble that risks undoing decades of restraint, and the world could be a lot less stable because of it.
Bringing back nuclear weapons testing appears to be aimed at bringing Russia and China to the negotiation table for a trilateral arms control agreement, something Trump keeps pushing for. However, Beijing has argued that its nuclear stockpile is way too small to be part of any trilateral arms control deal.
If Russia and China answer with their own tests, nuclear restraint could go out the window.
Crucially, this decision runs counter to the principles of restraint and diplomacy. Instead of using America’s overwhelming advantage in conventional military power and nuclear deterrence to push for diplomatic negotiations, the administration seems set on flexing its muscles. A restraint-based foreign policy would instead focus on reducing nuclear dangers through diplomacy, maintaining the taboo against nuclear use, and building verification regimes.
The US maintains approximately 5,177 nuclear warheads, second only to Russia’s 5,459. China has just 600. Moreover, American scientists can now use advanced computer modeling to check if the bombs still work without explosive testing. So, there’s no technical reason to start testing again. Restarting nuclear tests now would almost definitely push Russia and China to do the same. Other nuclear-armed states might follow. It may also provide states that aspire to nuclear-armed status justification to develop their own nuclear weapons programs.
The test of President Trump’s “escalate to deescalate” approach will come in the months ahead. If Russia and China answer with their own tests, nuclear restraint could go out the window. What follows isn’t just another arms race. It’s something more complex, riskier, and a whole lot more dangerous than the Cold War, a competition that nearly ended humanity.
The only hope for peace, and particularly for a reduction of nuclear arsenals, is that American citizens will relentlessly pressure their elected representatives to stop marching toward Armageddon and act to ensure human survival.
In the grim competition between environmental destruction and nuclear war over which one will cause the demise of civilization, the nuclear option gets considerably less media coverage than global warming. This is unfortunate, for nuclear weapons are no less of a threat. In fact, given how many close calls there have been since the 1950s, it’s miraculous that we’re still around to discuss the matter at all. In a global geopolitical environment that continues to see rising tensions between the West and both China and Russia, as well as between India and Pakistan and between a genocidal nuclear-armed Israel and much of the Middle East, few political agendas are more imperative than, to quote US President Donald Trump in early 2025, denuclearization.
The signs are not auspicious, however. For one thing, the last remaining missile treaty between Russia and the US, New START, expires in February 2026. New START limits both countries to 1,550 deployed warheads on no more than 700 long-range missiles and bombers. If Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin don’t come to an agreement before then, the end of this treaty could lead to a dangerous increase of deployed nuclear arsenals, and possibly a new arms race. On the other hand, if the two countries embrace the opportunity presented by the impending expiration of New START to forge a new and ambitious arms control regime, that could at least set the Doomsday Clock back a few seconds.
Russia wants a new treaty to limit arms, as it proposed that topic for discussion at the Alaska summit in August between Trump and Putin. Sadly, it is doubtful that Washington wants the same thing. On multiple occasions Trump has said he wants “denuclearization” talks with Russia and China, but the Washington establishment is much more ambivalent. In October 2023, the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the US endorsed a very belligerent stance. Among other things, it recommended that the US fully modernize and expand its nuclear arsenal; mount on delivery vehicles “some or all” of the nuclear warheads it holds in reserve; increase the planned procurement of B-21 bombers, submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and nuclear-armed air-launched cruise missiles; “re-convert” SLBM launchers and B-52s that New START rendered incapable of launching a nuclear weapon; deploy nuclear delivery systems in Europe and the Asia-Pacific; and prepare for a two-theater war against China and Russia.
Similarly, in February 2024 the head of the US Strategic Command recommended a return to deploying intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) with multiple nuclear warheads. Incredibly, some officials even advocate resuming explosive nuclear testing, on which the US declared a moratorium in 1992. Such a resumption would doubtless encourage other nuclear states to do the same thing, which could trigger an arms race.
If there is a danger of a two-front war with Russia and China, as the Congressional Commission reported in 2023, the obvious way to avoid such a horror is through diplomacy. Not through a massive arms race that could precipitate this very war.
It is worth noting that Washington’s aggressive posture is nothing new. Since the start of the Cold War, the US has been by far the most globally imperialistic state and by far the most responsible for escalating arms races. Its military and Central Intelligence Agency interventions in countries around the world have been on a vastly larger scale than the Soviet Union’s or Russia’s, and it has typically rebuffed Russia’s frequently expressed desire for peace. In their magisterial book The Limits of Power (1972), the historians Joyce and Gabriel Kolko argued that as early as the 1940s, “Russia’s real threat [to Washington] was scarcely military, but [rather] its ability to communicate its desire for peace and thereby take the momentum out of Washington’s policies.” Because of the Soviet Union’s relative economic and military weakness, Joseph Stalin sponsored international peace conferences and made numerous peace overtures to the Truman administration, all of which were dismissed. Such overtures continued in the months and years after Stalin’s death, but in most cases they met with a chilly reception.
Decades later, Mikhail Gorbachev enraged American officials by pursuing “public diplomacy” around nuclear disarmament. In 1985 he unilaterally declared a moratorium on nuclear weapons tests, hoping the US would follow suit. It didn’t. The following year, he announced his hope of eliminating all nuclear weapons everywhere by the year 2000. The Reagan administration was flabbergasted and generally appalled by the idea, though Ronald Reagan himself was sympathetic. But at the summit later that year, Reagan followed his advisers’ recommendations and rejected Gorbachev’s pleas to eliminate nuclear weapons. At least something was salvaged the following year, when Reagan and Gorbachev signed the INF Treaty.
In our own century, as NATO expanded ever farther east—blatantly threatening Russia—the Kremlin responded, yet again, with what amounted to peace initiatives. Putin floated the idea of joining NATO (as Boris Yeltsin and even Gorbachev had), but the US had no interest in that. A few years later, in 2008, Moscow proposed a pan-European security treaty, arguing that this was necessary in order to overcome all vestiges of the Cold War. That idea went nowhere, much like Moscow’s 2010 proposal of an EU-Russia free-trade zone to facilitate a Greater Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok, “which would provide mutual economic benefits and contribute to mitigating the zero-sum format of the European security architecture,” to quote the analyst Glenn Diesen. In the end, the US rebuffed all Russian attempts to thaw relations.
Evidently, for many decades the US has rarely had much interest in respectful coexistence with Russia. As outlined in a very revealing RAND Corporation report from 2019, its priority has been to “stress” Russia, to “overextend” it, for instance by provoking it to invade Ukraine. Because “some level of competition with Russia is inevitable,” Washington has to wage a “campaign to unbalance the adversary” and “caus[e] the regime to lose domestic and/or international prestige and influence.” This campaign has been going on since the 1940s.
Indeed, in its report RAND even tentatively suggested that “US leaders could probably goad Russia into a costly arms race by breaking out of the nuclear arms control regime. Washington could abrogate New START and begin aggressively adding to its nuclear stockpile and to its air and missile delivery systems. Moscow would almost certainly follow suit, whatever the cost.” In 2023, as we have seen, the Commission on the US Strategic Posture endorsed these recommendations.
The only hope for peace, and particularly for a reduction of nuclear arsenals, is that American citizens will relentlessly pressure their elected representatives to stop marching toward Armageddon and act to ensure human survival. After all, if there is a danger of a two-front war with Russia and China, as the Congressional Commission reported in 2023, the obvious way to avoid such a horror is through diplomacy. Not through a massive arms race that could precipitate this very war.
From the anti-war left to the MAGA right, we all must demand that, for once, politicians choose the path of sanity.
While some hawks still pretend that Ukraine could "win" the war with enough missiles, bombs, ammunition, and other supplies from the U.S., realists scoff at such claims.
After three and a half years of carnage in Ukraine, the meeting expected soon between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin is an opportunity to finally find a peaceful solution to a terrible war. Genuine diplomacy to end the bloodshed is long overdue.
Up to 100,000 Ukrainians are estimated to have been killed, many of them civilians, along with more than twice that number of deaths among Russian troops. Hundreds of thousands more have been wounded on each side, and Russian bombardment has devastated many of Ukraine’s cities and towns.
Condemnations of the Trump-Putin summit are predictable from congressional Democrats more interested in scoring political points than opening a diplomatic door for peace. While most Republican leaders will praise Trump no matter what he does, pressure from the so-called national security establishment could damage prospects for a peaceful outcome in Ukraine.
Since early 2022, the U.S. government, on a largely bipartisan basis, has provided upwards of $67 billion in military aid to Ukraine. Supporters of continuing the massive arming of Ukraine claim the highest moral ground, while others do the killing and dying. Even after it became clear that the war could go on indefinitely without any winner, the message from Washington’s elite politicians and pundits to the Ukrainian people has amounted to “let’s you and them fight.”
Last week, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) introduced a bill to give Ukraine $54.6 billion in aid over the next two years, with many billions going directly to arm the Ukrainian military. If the Trump-Putin summit is unsuccessful, the currently dim prospects for such legislation could brighten. This dynamic gives war enthusiasts and advocates for the military-industrial complex a motive to throw cold water on the summit.
While Murkowski now represents a minority view on Ukraine among fellow Republicans, Shaheen is decidedly in the mainstream of her Senate Democratic colleagues. Even after all the suffering and destruction in Ukraine, few seem really interested in giving peace a chance.
As for Trump, he has sometimes talked about seeking peace in Ukraine, even while greenlighting large quantities of weapons to the Kiev government. Given his mercurial approach, there is no telling what his mindset will be after meeting with Putin.
Most Democrats in Congress seem content with continuation of a war that has no end in sight. Little is being accomplished in military terms other than more killing, maiming and destruction.
During recent months, Ukrainian forces have lost ground to Russian troops. While some hawks still pretend that Ukraine could “win” the war with enough missiles, bombs, ammunition and other supplies from the U.S., realists scoff at such claims.
Unfortunately, while the war drags on, Democrats in Congress are prone to treat diplomacy as a third rail. To a large extent, their partisan template was reinforced nearly three years ago, making “diplomacy” a dirty word for the Ukraine war.
The fiasco began in late October 2022 with the release of a letter to President Biden signed by 30 House Democrats, led by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The letter was judicious in its tone and content, affirming support for Ukraine and appropriately condemning “Russia’s war of aggression.” But the signatories got in instant hot water because the letter balanced its support for arming Ukraine with sensibly urging steps that could stop a war without a foreseeable end.
“Given the destruction created by this war for Ukraine and the world, as well as the risk of catastrophic escalation, we also believe it is in the interests of Ukraine, the United States, and the world to avoid a prolonged conflict,” the letter stated. “For this reason, we urge you to pair the military and economic support the United States has provided to Ukraine with a proactive diplomatic push, redoubling efforts to seek a realistic framework for a ceasefire.”
Just one day later, Jayapal issued a statement declaring that “the Congressional Progressive Caucus hereby withdraws its recent letter to the White House regarding Ukraine.” For some members of the caucus, the sudden withdrawal was a jarring and embarrassing retreat from a stance for diplomacy.
Ever since then, the war train has continued to roll, unimpeded by cooler heads. And, like elected officials in Washington, voters are looking at the war through partisan lenses.
A March Gallup poll found that 79 percent of Democrats said that the U.S. was not doing enough to help Ukraine — a steep jump from 48 percent since the end of last year. During the same period, the number of surveyed Republicans with that view remained under 15 percent.
It is time for Americans and their elected representatives to set aside partisan lenses and see what’s really at stake with the Ukraine war. Endless killing is no solution at all.
Rebuilding détente between Washington and Moscow is essential — not only for the sake of Ukrainians and Russians who keep dying, but also for the entire world. The two nuclear superpowers must engage in dialogue and real diplomacy if the next generations all over the globe are to survive.