US Nuclear Testing: Risks of a Renewed Arms Race & Eroding Global Security

The global nuclear order is facing a period of escalating uncertainty, marked by the expiration of key arms control treaties and a renewed willingness among major powers to contemplate nuclear testing. February 12, 2026, saw the lapse of the New START treaty between the United States and Russia, leaving the two largest nuclear arsenals without binding constraints for the first time in over a decade. This development coincides with statements from Washington suggesting a potential resumption of certain forms of nuclear testing, a move that has prompted concern and reciprocal threats from Moscow and raised anxieties among international observers.

The shift in US policy began in October 2025, when President Donald Trump announced via social media that US forces might begin testing nuclear weapons to maintain parity with rival nuclear powers. While subsequent clarifications from US officials, including Energy Secretary Chris Wright, indicated that the planned actions would focus on “system tests” of delivery systems and non-nuclear materials rather than explosive detonations, the initial announcement triggered a significant reaction. The move represents a departure from a decades-long voluntary moratorium on such tests, maintained since the last US underground nuclear explosion at the Nevada Test Site in 1992.

For years, the United States has relied on the Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship program to assess the safety, security, and efficacy of its nuclear stockpile through simulation and laboratory testing, avoiding the need for explosive tests. However, President Trump’s statement signaled a perceived need to reassess this approach, citing concerns that other nations were secretly conducting tests. This claim, while not independently verified, has fueled a cycle of escalating rhetoric and potential action.

Russia has responded to the US pronouncements with a similar posture. According to state media reports, Russian President Vladimir Putin has instructed agencies to develop proposals for a possible resumption of nuclear tests should the United States proceed with its plans. This reciprocal threat underscores the fragility of the existing non-proliferation framework and the potential for a renewed arms race. While both Chinese and Russian governments have publicly reaffirmed their commitment to existing moratoriums, they are closely monitoring US actions, according to reports.

The expiration of New START further exacerbates the situation. The treaty, which limited deployed strategic nuclear warheads and delivery systems for both the US and Russia, failed to be renewed before its February 5, 2026 expiration date. As of January 15, 2026, Russia was reportedly still awaiting a US response to a proposal to extend the treaty for another year, highlighting a lack of progress in negotiations. The absence of New START leaves the two nations’ nuclear arsenals without binding constraints, increasing the risk of miscalculation and escalation.

The implications of these developments extend beyond the US-Russia relationship. A renewed US testing program could have ripple effects across the globe, particularly in regions of existing or potential nuclear tension. Countries in South Asia, including India and Pakistan, could face increased pressure to reconsider their nuclear postures if major powers visibly abandon the restraint that has characterized nuclear policy for over three decades. The erosion of established norms weakens the leverage of global disarmament advocacy and undermines trust between nuclear and non-nuclear states.

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), adopted in the mid-1990s, has yet to enter into force due to its failure to be ratified by all nuclear-armed states. The US decision to even contemplate testing risks undermining the treaty’s long-term viability and could prompt other states to reassess their own policies. Even non-explosive testing carries political and strategic implications, signaling a willingness to depart from decades of established practice.

Arms control experts have voiced strong criticism of the US stance. Daryl Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association, stated that the prospect of restarting nuclear explosive tests lacks any technical, military, or political justification and could be highly damaging to international security. This sentiment reflects a broader concern within the arms control community that the current trajectory is leading towards a more dangerous and unstable world.

Beyond the immediate strategic concerns, a resumption of nuclear testing also raises ethical and security considerations related to environmental risks. Past testing activities, such as those conducted at the Nevada National Security Site, have resulted in land disruption and radioactive contamination, impacting civilian populations near test sites. These risks must be carefully considered in any future discussions regarding nuclear testing and arms control.

The current situation represents a critical juncture for the global nuclear order. The confluence of expiring treaties, renewed testing considerations, and escalating geopolitical tensions creates a volatile environment. While the nuclear age has avoided full-scale testing for over thirty years, restoring restraint will require more than rhetoric and a renewed commitment to diplomacy and arms control.