US Trump orders Pentagon to begin testing nuclear weapons 'immediately' - The U.S. voluntarily halted nuclear explosive testing in 1992, though it has the ability to resume tests at a site in Nevada.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/na...esting-nuclear-weapons-immediately-rcna240681
https://archive.is/kbFbe
IMG_6513.webp
GYEONGJU, South Korea — President Donald Trump said Wednesday he had instructed the Defense Department to “immediately” resume testing nuclear weapons.

“Because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis,” Trump said on Truth Social shortly before his highly anticipated meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea. “That process will begin immediately.”

The United States has voluntarily halted nuclear explosive testing since 1992. However, it has the ability to resume tests at the Nevada National Security Site.

During his first term, Trump sought a nearly tenfold increase in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, NBC News reported at the time.

Russia announced a test of a new long-range nuclear powered underwater weapon Wednesday and recently tested a nuclear capable missile.

Trump, who has lately sharpened his rhetoric on U.S. military capabilities, said the decision was about reaching parity with Moscow and Beijing.

“Russia is second, and China is a distant third, but will be even within 5 years,” he said in his social media post.

He offered no answer when reporters asked about changing his nuclear testing plans.

During his trip to Asia, Trump has argued that showcasing American strength is a pathway to peace, using tariffs as leverage and showcasing U.S. military might.
 
But yeah I don't think nukes are going to be kept in standing much longer; very expensive. Similar thing to how chemical weapons died out because nobody liked them.
Expense is relative. Large nations can shoulder the expense. And it's often cheaper to have nuclear weapons on standby than it is to suffer the potential costs of not having an arsenal at a time of crisis.
I'm figuring things'll go to where all nations could scramble nukes via repurposing civilian industry, and that'll just serve as a deterrant against nukes, rather than the whole of war.
That's a great way to ensure a nuclear war.

The problem with that is the same problem I have with "global zero." Let's pretend that everyone gave up their nukes and no one's hiding one in the president's closet or something. Than a great power war breaks out. That's not unthinkable, as nuclear deterrence is possibly one of the reasons we haven't seen a large hot war directly between nuclear powers for 70 years. Now you have this war, and neither side has nukes. But one side realizes: we have the know-how and industry, if we build a bomb quickly we can use it as a weapon or a diplomatic tool and win the war in our favor. And they start to build a bomb. And the other side realizes this too and starts to build their own bomb. And since they know that the first side to build the bomb only has leverage in the period before the other side builds theirs, there's motivation to use that bomb basically as soon as it's built. And this might not end the war, as the other side is about to get theirs off the assembly line. So there's a retaliation. And probably more. And targeting strategies and motivation is different, due to the small numbers of warheads trickling in, meaning you want high-impact single targets, leaving only large, concentrated industrial areas, which happen to mostly be in or near large cities.

What you end up with is a nuclear war, one that would likely never have been fought if we just kept our nuclear weapons around.

I'd even argue such a nuclear war has potential to be worse than one fought under our current conditions, though that relies a lot on counterforce and limited war theory which I get is controversial.
 
Does it really fucking matter?

A nuke is still a nuke. Does it matter if it kills 500 million people instead of 350 million people? If you ever use one, the entire rest of the world will hate your ass so much you will cease to exist in the span of a year if you're lucky. If you attack another nuclear equipped nation you're getting nuked yourself.
They're not even real, babydick.
 
Did not know there was an option to simply not believe in nukes existing. I want that copium/hopium. Anyone have any video essays that backs those claims? I want to believe.
 
The US military needs to coup him and his entire junta, this is pure insanity that's destabilizing everything we worked very hard to accomplish. This degenerate freak NEEDS to be forcibly removed from power. The US military needs to act fast and hard, cut off the head of the MAGA snake and court martial them publicly. A new Nuremberg, a few hangings, and then hold a new election. This insanity has gone too far. It's time to end it. It must end.
No fedposting retard
 
Thank the Ruskies and China and by extension the Commie nuclear spies that we have to put up with a fat asian kid conditioned like pavlov's dog to launch a doomsday missile everytime he wants a treat or simply wants some attention.

I get it...you guys want to have your own stick because you're afraid of the US. But once they got theirs why oh why did the dummies have to proceed to spread it everywhere else as much as possible, firehosing the technology out of every orifice in every direction to every two bit banana dictator like some diseased crackwhore in an orgasm? It makes zero sense especially for their own interests.
Russia and China are obsessed with perceived geographic "weak points," and a western-aligned Korea is one of them. So they back the Norks. But the Norks want to sit at the big kid's table and ensure their own regime security so they build nuclear weapons. And Russia/China isn't confident in the Norks conventional chances against the west so they help, which they additionally see as a way to buy favors to keep the Norks on a leash.
 
Russia and China are obsessed with perceived geographic "weak points," and a western-aligned Korea is one of them.
If you want to talk geopolitical weak points that Russia and China BTFO America through, I point you to how practically every single of our geopolitical defeats over, at least, the last 15 years, happened within months of the primary or midterm election cylces, or as the direct result of administration differences such as the Afghanistan withdrawal.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.
We are not prepared for a war in the slightest, and anything DC, dem or rep, has been doing, hasn't been helping.

[snip + explaination]
I get that, those are good points; I'm mainly saying that it would be narrow-minded to think that war is now impossible because "technological progress", and that there's likely a lot of things that aren't being considered, by whomever, about how conventional warfare could come back.

Though I wouldn't expect this current Cold War to escalate, this'd be primarily for after it.
 
Última edición:
If you want to talk geopolitical weak points that Russia and China BTFO America through, I point you to how practically every single of our geopolitical defeats over, at least, the last 15 years, happened within months of the primary or midterm election cylces, or as the direct result of administration differences such as the Afghanistan withdrawal.
It's been documented that increasing division within the US system is something that they not only look for, but participate in.

Though I was talking more geographically. Both countries more or less want their entire border to be puppet states or at least close allies. A western-unified Korea would theoretically let the Americans march right into China whenever they want!
We are not prepared for a war in the slightest, and anything DC, dem or rep, has been doing, hasn't been helping.
I have mixed feelings. I won't go too much into it here. We still have some major advantages over our potential enemies, but we still have major shortcomings. Some good steps are being made, some are being made but way too slowly, and some necessary steps are not being taken. And everything going on in the political sphere, in DC, Paris, London, and Berlin; left and right; has been actively harmful at best.
 
it's more that over time the world will get tired of spending their GDP on nothing.
It does make me glad the Saudis would rather burn trillions of dollars on retarded 150+ mile long super-tall "mirror walls" in their turd-filled sandbox than dabble in nukes. It's going to be such a delight when they run out of oil (or people quit buying it).
 
It does make me glad the Saudis would rather burn trillions of dollars on retarded 150+ mile long super-tall "mirror walls" in their turd-filled sandbox than dabble in nukes. It's going to be such a delight when they run out of oil (or people quit buying it).
To my knowledge that happening, at least as-is, is going to be mixed for America. Saudi-American oil deals have been the main thing enforcing global dollarization since the creation of the UN. Course there's been talks of oil being bought in yuan. Neither good for American dominance.

Though I was talking more geographically. Both countries more or less want their entire border to be puppet states or at least close allies. A western-unified Korea would theoretically let the Americans march right into China whenever they want!
Yeah my bad. I'll say I can understand Chinese for wanting secure borders after the Century of Humilation, and this is also echoed in the Russian fear of encirclement, after we fucked them over. It's going to be a conflict point so long as globalization remains an American interest.

Some good steps are being made, some are being made but way too slowly, and some necessary steps are not being taken. And everything going on in the political sphere, in DC, Paris, London, and Berlin; left and right; has been actively harmful at best.
I would say at this point any improvement America makes is just immediately outpaced by what Russia and China do. Growth, and time, is in their favor.

I don't know what most'd think of this, that I've been thinking: America would just explode after 3 months in a conventional war. Consumerism would be canned due to Chinese imports being removed, industry wouldn't reorganize because that's expensive in America per the regulations and also the lost expertise, whatever side not in power would be staunchly anti-war, most fighting-age Americans, Anglo-German, Mexican, Chinese, simply have no interest in fighting, our economy is multiple bubbles of presumed perpetual growth (e.g AI and housing) in addition to the notion perpetual growth itself. Things are a fucking mess geopolitically.
 
We aren't going to be using them to move dirt, unless maybe a pure fusion weapon with minimal fallout is devised.

Better to research making conventional nukes that don't produce any fallout at all. Something Dubya had brought up doing and Congress instantly lost their shit before he even finished the sentence. Given how many congressman are bought and owned by America's enemies. That may be the more immediate productive path given their reactions to Dubya's suggestion and blocking all research into it. Even just to see if it's remotely viable at all or Dubya is completely talking out of his ass.




The most relevant peaceful application is asteroid deflection. In particular, interstellar asteroids could head directly for Earth with very little warning time to allow for other methods of dealing with them.
 
While you can't argue with the classics?

There's only so many times a man can watch the Ivy Mike shot before you just can't get an erection from it anymore...... :(


I shall now shamelessly plug one of my favorite vids on the subject of nuclear tests by Rojo Fern , check it out.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=FMx00v4nOf4
While Ivy Mike is kino, I want to see a B83 go off before I die. 1.2 megatons at max yield baby. Also the new mod of the B61, which is a 350 kiloton airburst weapon. Let me see the flames bitch. I'm ready.
 
I would say at this point any improvement America makes is just immediately outpaced by what Russia and China do.
Russia? No. On basically every front. China? Maybe. Though I wouldn't say they've outpaced us. The threat at the moment is more that they're rapidly approaching parity.
Growth, and time, is in their favor.
It is not. Both are suffering from severe demographic collapse and brain drain. Russia's economy is a ticking timebomb, and China's is stagnating. Xi and Putin are both aging. Would I rely on passive, Kennan-style containment? No. But will I say America being greatly surpassed is inevitable? No.
I don't know what most'd think of this, that I've been thinking: America would just explode after 3 months in a conventional war. Consumerism would be canned due to Chinese imports being removed, industry wouldn't reorganize because that's expensive in America per the regulations and also the lost expertise, whatever side not in power would be staunchly anti-war, most fighting-age Americans, Anglo-German, Mexican, Chinese, simply have no interest in fighting, our economy is multiple bubbles of presumed perpetual growth (e.g AI and housing) in addition to the notion perpetual growth itself.
I genuinely don't know. I will argue that people are more resilient than you'd suspect.
I mainly just feel bad for all the birds and fish that get nuked in testing.
I believe the PTBT is still in effect, meaning any nuclear testing will be underground.
 
Should move the testing site from nevada to downtown LA and SF. It would solve two problems at once - ensuring they work and getting rid of some of the worst cities in the country, while also pissing californians off to no end

...at least until they realize they can now afford dirt cheap land right on the water in SF and a bunch of idiots goes full stupid and buys up all the fallout riddled land out of wern tier greed
 
CNN: Exclusive: Department of Energy officials to meet with White House to tamp down Trump’s idea of explosive nuclear testing (archive) (lite)

By Ella Nilsen, René Marsh, Alayna Treene, CNN
Fri November 14, 2025

Top energy and nuclear officials in the Trump administration are planning to meet with the White House and National Security Council in the coming days to dissuade President Donald Trump from resuming testing of the nation’s nuclear weapons, sources told CNN.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright, National Nuclear Security Administration leader Brandon M. Williams and officials from the US National Laboratories are planning to inform the White House that they do not think blowing up weapons for nuclear warhead testing, as Trump suggested last month, is tenable, two sources familiar with the matter said. They asked not to be named to discuss a sensitive matter.

It’s the latest sign of fallout from Trump’s October social media post instructing the Department of Defense to start testing nuclear weapons “because of other countries testing programs.”

But NNSA, which falls under the Department of Energy, is the federal agency responsible for building and testing bombs and maintaining the nuclear stockpile, not the Defense Department.

A White House official reiterated on Thursday that “because of other countries’ testing programs, President Trump has instructed the Department of War and Department of Energy to test our nuclear weapons on an equal basis.”

“Nothing has been eliminated from consideration as all decision-making authority lies with the President,” the White House official added.

Energy Department spokesperson Ben Dietderich pushed back on the idea that agency officials would be dissuading the White House from resuming testing.

“The Trump administration continues to explore all options as it moves to expand nuclear testing on an equal basis with other nations,” Dietderich said in a statement.

Today, the US tests every part of its nuclear weapons systems except for the explosive nuclear material in warheads. The last full-scale nuclear weapons test was done in the US in 1992, and the practice was banned by former President Bill Clinton in 1996.

Trump’s recent suggestion the US could resume nuclear testing comes after Russian President Vladimir Putin boasted in October that Moscow had successfully tested a Poseidon nuclear-powered torpedo.

“The reason I’m saying — testing is because Russia announced that they were gonna be doing a test,” Trump told “60 Minutes” recently. “If you notice, North Korea’s testing constantly. Other countries are testing,” he said, adding: “I don’t wanna be the only country that doesn’t test.”

At the upcoming White House meeting, NNSA and DOE officials will be prepared to tell the administration that “there’s not going to be any testing” involving exploding nuclear materials and will seek to steer the White House into a workable plan that doesn’t involve blowing anything up, one source said.

The source said officials hoped it would give the president the opportunity to align himself with NNSA’s approach.

However, Trump has the authority to order the tests anyway if he doesn’t agree with the nuclear experts.

An NNSA spokesperson declined to comment. “NNSA does not comment on ongoing or potential private meetings with the White House, especially regarding matters of nuclear security,” NNSA spokesperson Mariza Smajlaj told CNN in a statement.

Mere minutes before he was due to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping in Korea last month, Trump took to Truth Social to say that he had directed the “Department of War” to “start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis.”

Inside the NNSA, Trump’s initial October suggestion was met with confusion, the sources said.

“Nobody saw this coming,” one of them said.

Wright, Trump’s energy secretary, told Fox News earlier this month that US nuclear tests are “system tests” and “not nuclear explosions.”

A senior White House official, when pressed this week on what exactly the president meant by his initial comments, told CNN that Trump was being “purposefully vague” in his calls to resume nuclear testing.

The official argued the president became fixated on the idea while on his trip to Asia, telling CNN that some foreign leaders brought the issue up to Trump directly while he was abroad.

Another administration official argued that they viewed the president’s comments as wanting to do more testing on nuclear-capable missiles, rather than detonating nuclear bombs.

So far, Trump’s comments haven’t changed agency policy: No plans are underway for exploding nuclear weapons for testing purposes. One source told CNN that no one in the administration has explained to those in the agency what exactly Trump meant by his comments.

NNSA officials recently prepared a memo for Wright and Williams outlining all the things the agency does to make sure its weapons are up to speed, including supercomputer bomb simulations and test flights of non-explosive warheads, the sources told CNN.

That memo also lays out what the timeline would be if the administration directed NNSA to go back to nuclear testing like Trump had suggested. One source said it would take 36 months of underground testing at a minimum to obtain scientifically useful data, but that timeline could get much longer if the federal government were sued by environmental or other groups to delay or stop the testing.

“If they wanted to just make the ground shake, you could probably do that sooner, but there wouldn’t be a purpose to the test beyond political signaling,” the source said.

If the US returned to nuclear testing, it would be done in Nevada – at the only underground site designed to explode nuclear weapons. That space sits on federal land in a vast desert, but the state government would also need to sign off on the testing – another thorny issue.

“There’s a big resistance from states about dealing with nuclear materials like we used to,” the source said.

There is also the matter of legacy cleanup of nuclear waste due to decades of nuclear testing in Nevada. Testing has had devastating health impacts on nearby downwind communities, from radiation exposure to illnesses like cancer.

There is no need for weapons testing, as the US still has a lot of “really good data” from Cold War-era nuclear testing, one of the sources said.

There are concerns that if the US resumed testing, China could also use it as an excuse to perform nuclear tests — something it says it is not currently doing — raising the geopolitical temperature across the globe.

Neither Beijing nor Moscow have tested a nuclear warhead in many decades, according to experts.

In response to questions about whether the Trump administration has more intelligence on Russia and China’s nuclear activities than what is publicly known, a person who worked in the West Wing during Trump’s first term, including on national security issues, told CNN: “It would be hard for either country to blow up nuclear warheads underground and keep that quiet. That’s not happening.”

CNN’s Kevin Liptak and Kylie Atwood contributed to this report
 
Atrás
Top Abajo