Why Does Trump Want to Resume Nuclear Testing? Exploring the Background of Breaking 30 Years of Silence: Understanding "Nuclear Test Resumption" Through Three Scenarios

"Resumption of Nuclear Testing After 30 Years"—A New Slogan of "On an Equal Basis"

On October 29-30, 2025 (Japan time), U.S. President Donald Trump announced on his social media (Truth Social) that he had instructed the immediate resumption of U.S. nuclear weapons "testing." The last U.S. nuclear explosion test was in 1992. This statement, suggesting a policy shift after 33 years, was made just before a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Busan, causing a stir in global media and social media spaces. The rationale for the statement is simple: "Since Russia and China are doing it, the U.S. should do it 'on an equal basis.'" However, it remains uncertain whether this "test" refers to nuclear warhead explosion tests or flight tests of delivery systems.Reuters

Why "Now": Russia's "New" Show and China's Expansion

In recent weeks, Russia has announced tests of "nuclear-capable" weapons such as the nuclear-powered cruise missile "Burevestnik" and the nuclear-powered unmanned underwater vehicle "Poseidon." The U.S. estimates that China has doubled its nuclear warhead stockpile in the past five years and could exceed 1,000 by 2030. Trump's statement on "immediate resumption" is positioned as a demonstration and deterrent against these developments. However, the Kremlin has shown a cautious reaction, stating, "We have not conducted nuclear explosion tests themselves."Reuters

Contents of the "Test": Explosion Test or Flight Test?

If it means a "nuclear explosion test," it is usually the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) under the Department of Energy, not the Department of Defense, that conducts it. The U.S. signed the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996 but has not ratified it. However, countries have continued to evaluate reliability through subcritical tests and advanced simulations that do not involve nuclear explosions. It is unclear whether the current statement refers to explosion tests or tests of delivery systems such as missiles and submarine-launched vehicles, causing ripples in policy, technology, and diplomacy.AP News

Practical Barriers: Preparation of "Several Years" at the Shortest and Rising Costs

To resume underground nuclear tests at the "Nevada National Security Site (formerly Nevada Test Site)," extensive infrastructure rebuilding is necessary, including tunnel maintenance, restoration of measurement systems, and redeployment of skilled personnel. Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association noted on social media that "returning to 'containment tests' underground would take at least 36 months." AP also cited a 2018 Los Alamos study estimating "2-4 years for simple effect measurements, 24-36 months for full measurements." The Washington Post has reported on the complexities of practical, personnel, and cost aspects.Reuters

Impact on International Order: Immediate Warnings from CTBTO and the UN

The CTBTO (Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization) in Vienna issued a strong warning that "any nuclear explosion test by any country undermines the non-proliferation regime and international peace and security." The UN Secretary-General's spokesperson also reaffirmed the position that "nuclear tests are unacceptable under any circumstances." The CTBTO reiterated that its global monitoring network can detect tests anywhere in the world.Reuters

Reactions from China and Russia: Demanding Moratorium Compliance and Deterrence

China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs officially responded by urging the U.S. to comply with the moratorium and maintain strategic stability. Russia reiterated its stance, saying, "if the U.S. starts nuclear testing, we will too," while pointing out the "lack of specificity" in the recent U.S. statement. Such exchanges could crack the "de facto nuclear test moratorium" that has been barely maintained since the 1990s.Reuters

"Proponents" and "Opponents" Within the U.S.

The proponents are led by the administration's core. Vice President JD Vance argues that tests are crucial to ensure "functional certainty." On the other hand, Senator Ed Markey has announced plans to introduce a bill to "prevent funding for the resumption," and Representative Dina Titus from Nevada has hinted at submitting a blocking bill on social media, indicating that the political battle has already begun.Reuters

Reactions on Social Media: Voices of Experts, International Organizations, and Locals

• Daryl Kimball (Arms Control Association)
  "The U.S. has no technical, military, or political reason. Resuming tests would take at least 36 months and could trigger a chain of retaliatory tests" (Summary of X post)X (formerly Twitter)

• CTBTO (Executive Secretary Robert Floyd)
  "Any nuclear explosion test is harmful and destabilizing. The international monitoring network can detect it anywhere on Earth"—official statement and social media post.ctbto.org

• Representative Dina Titus (Nevada)
  "Will introduce a bill to stop it" (X). Local and international media are widely spreading the news.CNA

• Arguments of Supporters (Administration and Conservative Commentators)
  "Aligning with the advancements of China and Russia on an equal basis for deterrence" and "reliability verification for aging concerns"—there is a certain number of positive reactions along these lines, but opinions are divided on whether it includes "explosion tests."Reuters

"Market" and "Security" Forecast: Three Scenarios

1. "Expanded Interpretation" Without Explosion Tests
   If "tests" only refer to flight tests, simulations, and subcritical tests, the diplomatic risk is relatively limited. However, international friction continues due to the nuances of wording.Reuters

2. Revival of Limited Underground Explosion Tests
   It would take several years to execute, with high domestic legal, political, and regional consensus hurdles. If conducted, it poses a risk of spreading to not only China and Russia but also India, Pakistan, and North Korea.AP News

3. Comprehensive Arms Control "Renegotiation" Card
   There is a non-zero possibility of using strong statements as negotiation leverage to guide towards multilateral quantity management and reaffirmation of the testing moratorium. However, this "game of chicken" involves considerable danger.Reuters

Perspective of the Source: InfoMoney's Take on "Why?"

Brazil's InfoMoney explores "Why Trump Wants to Resume Nuclear Testing After 30 Years," identifying Russia's demonstration of "nuclear-capable" weapons and China's rapid nuclear force expansion as decisive external factors. It also considers domestic political factors (cards for negotiations with China, deterrence against Russia) as background. The tone is calm, noting that international backlash and rising geopolitical tensions are inevitable.infomoney.com.br

Conclusion: The "Breadth" of Words and the "Weight" of Practice

The rough phrase "Start testing" tends to be "maximally interpreted" in diplomatic, domestic, and technical aspects. However, practice is heavy and slow. Even a one-time "effect measurement" would take years, and full measurements would take even longer—during which international norms would erode, and neighboring countries' "preparations" would advance. Therefore, the real challenge lies in whether it can be redefined clearly as to "what," "how far," and "by when," and simultaneously reconnect to multilateral re-deterrence rules.AP News