A

merican President Donald Trump has ordered the U.S. military to immediately resume testing nuclear weapons, ending a three-decade moratorium and sparking fears of a renewed global arms race. The surprise directive came on Thursday, just minutes before Trump began a long-anticipated meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, according to senior administration officials.

The decision marks the first time since 1992 that the United States will conduct a live nuclear test, reversing years of bipartisan policy restraint and potentially undermining global non-proliferation efforts built around the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). It also sets the stage for escalating tensions with Russia and China, both of which have been expanding their nuclear modernization programs.

The nuclear age began in July 1945 when the United States detonated the world’s first atomic bomb at Alamogordo, New Mexico. The test, known as “Trinity,” unleashed an explosion equivalent to 20 kilotons of TNT. Just weeks later, the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing more than 200,000 people and forcing Japan’s surrender in World War Two. Four years later, in August 1949, the Soviet Union conducted its first nuclear test, ending Washington’s monopoly on atomic power and triggering the Cold War arms race.

2,000 nuclear tests conducted worldwide

In the five decades between 1945 and the adoption of the CTBT in 1996, more than 2,000 nuclear tests were conducted worldwide, according to United Nations data. The United States carried out 1,032 of those tests, while the Soviet Union conducted 715. France conducted 210, the United Kingdom 45, and China 45. Nuclear explosions were carried out in deserts, under mountains, and even underwater, scattering radioactive fallout across vast regions.

Since the test-ban treaty was signed, only ten nuclear tests have occurred — two by India and two by Pakistan in 1998, and six by North Korea between 2006 and 2017. The United States last tested in 1992, China and France in 1996, and the Soviet Union in 1990. Russia, which inherited most of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, has never conducted a nuclear warhead test.

The cessation of testing was driven largely by health and environmental concerns. Decades of atmospheric and underground testing left parts of the Pacific Islands, Kazakhstan, and the Arctic contaminated with radiation, causing cancers, birth defects, and widespread ecological damage. Activists and scientists warned that continued testing would make large parts of the planet uninhabitable. The movement for a test ban gained global momentum, leading to the CTBT’s adoption by the United Nations General Assembly in 1996.

Ban by everyone, everywhere?

The CTBT bans all nuclear explosions “by everyone, everywhere.” Russia signed the treaty in 1996 and ratified it in 2000. The United States also signed in 1996 but has never ratified it, leaving Washington technically free from its legal obligations. In 2023, Russian President Vladimir Putin withdrew Moscow’s ratification, bringing Russia in line with the United States and signaling the erosion of a cornerstone of arms control.

Analysts say the motivations behind renewed testing are both technical and political. From a military perspective, testing provides data about the reliability of existing warheads and the capabilities of new weapons designs. From a strategic standpoint, it sends a clear message of deterrence to rivals. “A nuclear test is as much about science as it is about signaling,” said one Western defense official. “It tells the world that a country is willing and able to use its most powerful weapons if necessary.”

In 2020, reports surfaced that Trump’s administration had debated conducting a nuclear test as a show of strength to Russia and China. Putin has since warned that Moscow would respond in kind if Washington resumes testing. “If the United States breaks the moratorium, Russia will do the same,” Putin said earlier this year, accusing the U.S. of destabilizing the global security balance.

The world’s two dominant nuclear powers

The United States and Russia remain the world’s two dominant nuclear powers. According to the Federation of American Scientists, Russia holds approximately 5,459 nuclear warheads, while the United States has around 5,177. The Washington-based Arms Control Association estimates the figures slightly higher, with 5,580 for Russia and 5,225 for the U.S. Together, they possess over 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons.

Global stockpiles have fallen dramatically since the Cold War peak of more than 70,000 warheads in 1986. Today, there are roughly 12,000 in existence, most belonging to Russia and the United States. China is estimated to have 600 nuclear warheads, followed by France with 290, the United Kingdom 225, India 180, Pakistan 170, Israel 90, and North Korea 50.

The resumption of testing threatens to reverse decades of progress in arms control and heightens the risk of miscalculation between nuclear-armed states. Experts warn that it could embolden other nations to resume testing or develop new nuclear capabilities. “We are entering an era of renewed nuclear competition,” said one European diplomat. “The guardrails that have kept the world safe for decades are being dismantled piece by piece.”

As Washington prepares for its first nuclear test in over three decades, global leaders are calling for restraint. China’s President Xi Jinping said the world “must not return to the path of confrontation,” while United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres urged all nuclear powers to uphold the spirit of the test-ban treaty. “The world cannot afford another arms race,” Guterres said in a statement. “History has shown that once nuclear testing begins, it becomes very difficult to stop.”

(Source: Reuters)

C

hina and the United States are slated to hold discussions on nuclear arms control next week, marking the first such dialogue since the Obama administration, according to a report from the Wall Street Journal.

The announcement comes after Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s recent visit to Washington. Officials from both nations have revealed that consultations on arms control and non-proliferation will be undertaken in the following days, with additional discussions on maritime affairs and other related topics.

Senior State Department official Mallory Stewart and Sun Xiaobo, head of the arms-control department at China’s foreign ministry, will spearhead the arms talks. As of now, neither the U.S. State Department nor China’s embassy in Washington has commented on the specifics regarding the format or timing of these discussions.

Strategic stability

In 2021, U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan noted that both the Chinese and U.S. presidents had expressed their intent to continue discussions on “strategic stability”. This emphasis arose due to increasing concerns in Washington about Beijing’s expansion of its nuclear weapons capacity. However, the White House was prompt in clarifying that these conversations would not mimic the formal arms reduction talks previously held with Russia.

Interestingly, despite the collaborative tone, U.S. officials have, in the past, expressed their disappointment over China’s seeming disinterest in proactive discussions to mitigate nuclear weapons risks. As per Pentagon data from October, China is believed to have over 500 operational nuclear warheads and might possess over 1,000 warheads by 2030. This assertion has been countered by Beijing, stating that the U.S. already has a substantially larger arsenal.

In response to these figures, Beijing has countered by pointing out the extensive nuclear arsenal of the United States. Chinese officials have long maintained the stance that the U.S. holds a substantially larger and more formidable collection of nuclear weapons in comparison to China’s arsenal.

The implications of these revelations are substantial, further emphasizing the nuclear capabilities divide and the race for nuclear superiority between two of the world’s most influential powers. The disclosure comes amidst growing tensions and calls for arms control talks between the two nations.

Strained relations between the two global powers

The upcoming arms discussion is anticipated to precede a significant meeting between U.S. President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping in San Francisco later in November. While the overarching agenda is yet to be fully fleshed out, a representative from the Biden administration acknowledged that vital details are currently in the works.

This move towards dialogue is seen as a part of the broader effort to restore strained diplomatic relations between the two global powers, especially in light of incidents such as the U.S. downing of a suspected Chinese spy balloon earlier this year.

Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, opined that the discussions would potentially center on promoting a more transparent understanding of each nation’s nuclear doctrines and bolstering effective crisis communication channels. Kimball, however, cautioned against expecting immediate significant outcomes, emphasizing that real progress would necessitate mutual compromise and patience.

Sources: South China Morning Post and Reuters

T

he world is divided: there is little doubt that all states need a sustainable and affordable power supply, but the way they meet their energy needs differs. At the same time, the war in Ukraine has been impacting states’ energy choices with some states sticking to their long-term plans while others redesigning theirs. It is now more obvious than ever that states that adapt to both internal and external factors will be the winners while those that remain faithful to antiquated (outdated? Defunct?) energy policies will be left behind.

As the Russia-Ukraine war has been pushing energy prices up, mainly oil, natural gas, and coal, states dependent on fossil fuels have begun to re-examine their energy plans. Since 2000, the way to avoid coal, the dirtiest of fossil fuels, has been first to use natural gas; if states already use gas, then they have tried to use more of it. Over time, natural gas became a top source for generating electricity, heating homes, and running industries in several countries.

Yet, first, the coronavirus pandemic and, then, the Russian war on Ukraine showed that fluctuating natural gas prices could both relieve and cause heavy harm to economies as the aggressor in Ukraine is Russia – the world’s largest natural gas exporter. Renewables have increased their importance too, but the intermittent nature of renewable power supply hasn’t succeeded in promising sustainable electric power. The only option that has remained and is already known to the world is nuclear power. However, although nuclear power is one of the most sustainable ways to maintain electricity supply and a low-emission source of generating power, there is no consensus among states on the use of nuclear power, or even on ending its use altogether.

Once upon a time in nuclear lands

In 2010, three countries constituted the world’s largest nuclear power generators: the U.S., France, and Japan, generating in total 56 percent of global nuclear electricity. In 2011, Russia replaced Japan, and nuclear electricity decreased to 45 percent in Japan because of the Fukushima disaster. On March 11, 2011, the most powerful earthquake to ever hit Japan occurred in the country’s Tōhoku region causing a powerful tsunami and a nuclear accident  at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

Although no major fatalities attributed to radiation were confirmed, the Japanese government began to pursue an anti-nuclear policy and gradually halted many of its reactors’ operations. In 2014, Japan generated no electricity from nuclear power, and in 2015, only 3.2 TWh were generated, which amounted to 99% less electrical energy than in 2010.

Germany, the sixth-largest nuclear electricity generator in 2010, was also impacted by the Fukushima disaster. Even though the well-known German “Energiewende” is famous for its ambitious goal to phase out coal-fired electricity generation to fight climate change, its origins are rooted in ending the use of nuclear power to prevent any accident like that of Fukushima.

Yet, the probability of an earthquake and tsunami in central Europe is much lower, and the German aversion to nuclear power has created another sphere of dependency: natural gas. In the meantime, countries like the U.S., France, Russia, Canada, and South Korea have continued to use their nuclear power facilities despite higher risks in some cases.

Nuclear power in the new energy security reality

The Ukraine war has once again proved to the world that diversification in every aspect of energy is the key, and sustainable, affordable, and reliable energy supply is a must. As nuclear power is one of the most sustainable, reliable, and cleanest ways to generate electricity, more states brought it back to the agenda. While new technologies like small modular reactors bring more hope, and states like the U.S., France, and Japan are working day and night to use nuclear energy, third-generation nuclear power plants are still the center of attraction. Today, most of the nuclear power plants being built are in China, India, Russia, South Korea, and the United Arab Emirates, and are third generation.

Japan, moreover, has just decided to restart its nuclear reactors gradually while France’s pro-nuclear policy has gained more ground and its government is working on new projects to replace its ageing nuclear power plants. The French government is also trying to unite EU countries to boost nuclear power and push the Union to list nuclear power in green energy finance. Yet, the German federal government still insists on its anti-nuclear strategy and will close its last six reactors by the end of April, although heavy energy bills have exhausted the public and public opinion is against the decision.

Turkey’s 50-year dream coming true

As of 2022, renewable energy including hydropower, accounts for almost 55 percent of Turkey’s total electricity generation capacity. The country also generates electricity from natural gas and coal. One of the reasons for this is that today’s renewable technologies are still exposed to seasonality. Droughts, for instance, negatively affect hydropower, and less rain and snowfall results in a decline in hydroelectric power production. During these times, dispatchable sources of electricity, which constitute a baseload power, are vital to uninterrupted energy supply. Thus, Turkey still needs to diversify its electricity generation capacity and is on the verge of adding nuclear power to its capacity.

Nuclear energy in Turkey goes back to the 1950s. As a first institutional step, the Atomic Energy Commission was founded in 1956, and the first nuclear research reactor was established in 1961. Yet, an unstable political environment and financial constraints prevented the realization of nuclear power plant projects in Turkey. Despite this, Turkey never abandoned its plan to add nuclear power to its energy mix. On May 12, 2010, the agreement on cooperation between Turkey and Russia to establish the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) was signed. The agreement envisaged the foundation of a 4800 MW nuclear power plant to be built in Mersin, Akkuyu, and eight years later, the foundation for the first of the four reactors was laid.

The National Energy and Mining Policy, released in April 2017, institutionalized Turkey’s ambitions for introducing nuclear energy to the economy. The policy envisioned two nuclear power plants in the next decade, one in Mersin and the other in Sinop. During the construction process of Akkuyu, Ankara’s relations with Moscow were tested; yet, despite Turkey’s and Russia’s conflicting interests in Syria, the coronavirus pandemic, and the Ukraine war, the project has not been called off.

Some states responded to these challenges by upending their energy policies. Turkey, however, decisively stuck to its plans, motivated by securing the country’s energy supply by increasing the use of indigenous resources and introducing new technologies. While Akkuyu NPP’s construction process has continued, negotiations for the second and third nuclear power plants have been ongoing. On April 15, the country’s first nuclear reactor at the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant was completed and its inauguration takes place on April 27.

By 2026, all four reactors are planned to be operating and Akkuyu will generate about 10 percent of Turkey’s annual electricity needs. Akkuyu will not only diversify Ankara’s electricity supply sources, but it is also expected to decrease its dependency on imported natural gas and coal by decreasing thermal power plants’ share in electricity generation. With nuclear energy replacing some of its electricity supply, Turkey’s current account deficit which is mostly fueled by fossil energy products’ imports, will also be curtailed.

Furthermore, the low-carbon emission nature of nuclear power will contribute to Ankara’s 2053 carbon neutrality target. Nuclear power-supported renewable power capacity could source a significant amount of Turkey’s electricity supply. Hence, the benefits that nuclear power provides fit well with Turkey’s developing strategies, and if the negotiations on the second and third nuclear power plants are carefully carried out, they also will help the country become more energy independent.

During the Cold War, views on nuclear deterrence maintained that a “presumed automatic balance” of power would make nuclear war highly unlikely, on the prerequisite that states were more responsible about avoiding falling into deliberate or accidental nuclear war. However, the world is on the cusp of a new nuclear age as we face the reality of increased uncertainty and increasing complexity. The basic assumptions of the Cold War era no longer hold, and a fresh look is urgently needed—The Fragile Balance of Terror: Deterrence in the New Nuclear Age provides just that.

Nuclear states are undergoing modernization programs and a renewed arms race. Since the Cold War more states have acquired nuclear weapons and have added onto the nuclear landscape a motley of alarming new variables to look out for. Crises and escalations between nuclear states instill fear in the masses as conflicts turn hot and actors become more reckless. Furthermore, over the years, the aspirations of states to acquire nuclear weapons have resulted in many crises.

Could the current lack of a nuclear war breakout be a matter of pure luck? According to the authors, even if this were the case, our luck may just be running out. In The Fragile Balance of Terror, Vipin Narang and Scott D. Sagan argue that the classical deterrence theory seems to be losing its validity.

What are the risks of “nuclear contagion”? Focusing on the second generation of nuclear states, prominent experts on strategy and nuclear policy—namely Giles David Arceneaux, Mark S. Bell, Christopher Clary, Peter D. Feaver, Jeffrey Lewis, Rose McDermott, Nicholas L. Miller, Vipin Narang, Ankit Panda, Scott D. Sagan, Caitlin Talmadge, Heather Williams, and Amy Zegart—collaborate to explain the expanding array of forces and issues, and incorporate new thinking and analysis to the current nuclear era.

This eye-opening collection shows how deterrence may not be a reliable strategy in the future by visiting old challenges such as nuclear reliability, preventative war, survivability, and nuclear learning revamped with a twist to examining the brand-new challenges currently unfolding such as multipolarity, psychology and leaders, and new technologies complicating communication, command, and control.

The Fragile Balance of Terror highlights important topics at the forefront in the 21^st century such as military technologies that create vulnerable arsenals, misinformation, nuclear rivalries that include three or more nuclear powers, dictatorial decision-making lacking checks and balances, and rash choices.

The nuclear threats posed by India, Israel, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea are precarious. Furthermore, besides their highly hostile environments, domestic instability and few resources challenge these new and potential nuclear powers. Can deterrence hold between these new nuclear states? What are the risks of inadvertent escalation or accidental war in the new nuclear age? The findings are grim, but the book also explores mitigation steps to reduce the heightened potential risks.

The Fragile Balance of Terror: Deterrence in the New Nuclear Age is an insightful read for understanding the present nuclear landscape and the fragility of the classical deterrence model in the face of new actors and sources of nuclear instability. The e-book version of the book can be downloaded for free at the Cornell University Press website.

Vipin Narang and Scott D. Sagan, The Fragile Balance of Terror: Deterrence in the New Nuclear Age (Cornell University Press, 2023) ISBN13: 9781501767029, 270 pages