Threats of nuclear testing ignore its terrifying history

Computer modeling has effectively made nuclear testing obsolete

By Stephen Mihm / Bloomberg Opinion, https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2025/11/16/2003847274

Should the US and Russia resume nuclear testing?

The answer to that question must be a resounding “No.” Yet US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, eager to project strength, have raised fears that they might be moving to revive the dangerous practice. While the significance of testing nuclear weapons dwindled more than 60 years ago, the terrifying circumstances that brought that era to a close should remain top of mind, reminding leaders why using nuclear testing to gain a strategic advantage is a terrible idea.

Thanks to Hollywood, many audiences know something about the dawn of the nuclear age. Led by physicist Robert Oppenheimer, a crack team of eccentric geniuses housed at Los Alamos, New Mexico, built and tested the first atomic bomb in 1945. It led Oppenheimer to recall a line from the Hindu sacred text, the Bhagavad Gita: “Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.”

Although the atomic scientists who followed Oppenheimer lacked his literary sensibilities, they took world-destroying quite seriously. Teams in the US and the Soviet Union competed to build and test ever-larger bombs in a blatantly obvious effort at intimidating the other side.

The US went first, forcing the indigenous people of Bikini Atoll to relocate so that it could detonate bombs in the Marshall Islands in 1946. Radioactive debris rained down on the sailors sent to watch the tests. They absorbed dangerous doses of radiation, as did many of the native islanders living in the area, inaugurating a multigenerational legacy of cancers and birth defects.

NUCLEAR RACE

Nevada, where the US military began above-ground tests in 1951, was no better. There, too, the federal government confiscated land owned by indigenous peoples and placed soldiers far too close to the detonation sites. In subsequent decades, their bodies would be plagued by cancers and other maladies born of their fateful exposure.

Back in the Marshall Islands, the US began testing a new generation of nuclear weapons that used conventional fission bombs to detonate a much larger, “fusion,” or hydrogen bomb. These experiments went terribly awry during the infamous Castle Bravo test of 1954.

The bomb in question was supposed to generate the equivalent of 5 to 6 megatonnes of TNT. However, hanks to some serious miscalculations, the explosion clocked in at 15 megatonnes, or 1,000 times the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan. The explosion sucked up 10 million tonnes of sand and pulverized coral, creating a massive fallout cloud that fell on islanders, US military personnel and even Japanese fishing vessels 129km east of the test site.

This was what historian Alex Wellerstein has described as “the greatest single radiological disaster in American history.” It also holds the record of being the biggest nuclear test ever conducted by the US. It might have remained the biggest test ever had it not been for the Soviet Union.

After World War II, the communist nation worked desperately to build and test its own bomb, terrified of what might happen if it failed. Indeed, a Russian nuclear scientist who attended the Bikini test in 1946 claimed that the purpose of the demonstration had been “to frighten the Soviets.”

Thanks to atomic spy Klaus Fuchs, the Soviets managed to detonate their first atomic weapon in 1949. Still, they spent much of the next decade playing catch-up, countering progressively larger tests with their own demonstrations. Former Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev, eager to pull ahead, approved a top-secret project to build the biggest nuclear weapon in human history. It was known as “Kuzma’s mother,” an allusion to a Russian idiom that basically means: “We’ll show you.”

Threats of nuclear testing ignore its terrifying history

Computer modeling has effectively made nuclear testing obsolete

• By Stephen Mihm / Bloomberg Opinion

Should the US and Russia resume nuclear testing?

The answer to that question must be a resounding “No.” Yet US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, eager to project strength, have raised fears that they might be moving to revive the dangerous practice. While the significance of testing nuclear weapons dwindled more than 60 years ago, the terrifying circumstances that brought that era to a close should remain top of mind, reminding leaders why using nuclear testing to gain a strategic advantage is a terrible idea.

Thanks to Hollywood, many audiences know something about the dawn of the nuclear age. Led by physicist Robert Oppenheimer, a crack team of eccentric geniuses housed at Los Alamos, New Mexico, built and tested the first atomic bomb in 1945. It led Oppenheimer to recall a line from the Hindu sacred text, the Bhagavad Gita: “Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.”

Illustration: Kevin Sheu

Although the atomic scientists who followed Oppenheimer lacked his literary sensibilities, they took world-destroying quite seriously. Teams in the US and the Soviet Union competed to build and test ever-larger bombs in a blatantly obvious effort at intimidating the other side.

The US went first, forcing the indigenous people of Bikini Atoll to relocate so that it could detonate bombs in the Marshall Islands in 1946. Radioactive debris rained down on the sailors sent to watch the tests. They absorbed dangerous doses of radiation, as did many of the native islanders living in the area, inaugurating a multigenerational legacy of cancers and birth defects.

NUCLEAR RACE

Nevada, where the US military began above-ground tests in 1951, was no better. There, too, the federal government confiscated land owned by indigenous peoples and placed soldiers far too close to the detonation sites. In subsequent decades, their bodies would be plagued by cancers and other maladies born of their fateful exposure.

Back in the Marshall Islands, the US began testing a new generation of nuclear weapons that used conventional fission bombs to detonate a much larger, “fusion,” or hydrogen bomb. These experiments went terribly awry during the infamous Castle Bravo test of 1954.

The bomb in question was supposed to generate the equivalent of 5 to 6 megatonnes of TNT. However, hanks to some serious miscalculations, the explosion clocked in at 15 megatonnes, or 1,000 times the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan. The explosion sucked up 10 million tonnes of sand and pulverized coral, creating a massive fallout cloud that fell on islanders, US military personnel and even Japanese fishing vessels 129km east of the test site.

This was what historian Alex Wellerstein has described as “the greatest single radiological disaster in American history.” It also holds the record of being the biggest nuclear test ever conducted by the US. It might have remained the biggest test ever had it not been for the Soviet Union.

After World War II, the communist nation worked desperately to build and test its own bomb, terrified of what might happen if it failed. Indeed, a Russian nuclear scientist who attended the Bikini test in 1946 claimed that the purpose of the demonstration had been “to frighten the Soviets.”

Thanks to atomic spy Klaus Fuchs, the Soviets managed to detonate their first atomic weapon in 1949. Still, they spent much of the next decade playing catch-up, countering progressively larger tests with their own demonstrations. Former Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev, eager to pull ahead, approved a top-secret project to build the biggest nuclear weapon in human history. It was known as “Kuzma’s mother,” an allusion to a Russian idiom that basically means: “We’ll show you.”

When completed in 1961, “Kuzma’s mother” — also known as the Tsar Bomba or the “King of Bombs” — was the size of a school bus and weighed 25 tonnes. It was too big to fit into any of the Soviet bomber aircraft, so the military removed the bomb bay doors on a Tupolev TU-95 and strapped it to the bottom of the plane.

MASSIVE BLAST

On Oct. 31, 1961, the TU-95 left a Russian airfield bound for Novaya Zemlya, a collection of islands above the Arctic Circle; a separate plane containing a film crew accompanied it. They departed not knowing if they would return home: Authorities had given the planes a 50/50 chance of surviving the shock wave.

When they reached the target location, the bomber dropped its lethal package. The bomb, fitted with a parachute to slow its descent and give the planes time to escape, floated downward until it reached 4,000m before exploding.

The blast, which could be seen more than 1,000km away, registered at 57 megatonnes, 10 times more powerful than all the bombs and ordnance used in World War II. Had any human been within 100km of the epicenter (there were not any), they would have been immediately vaporized or have sustained third-degree burns. The shock wave shattered windows 901km away.

The test inflamed Cold War tensions, and a year later, the world came dangerously close to complete annihilation during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In its wake, saner heads began to prevail, and the US and Soviet Union signed the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963, which moved nuclear testing underground, where it became less of a provocation. A complete test ban followed 30 years later, aided by that computer modeling has effectively made nuclear testing obsolete.

Trump and Putin now seem inclined to take us back to the bad old days of nuclear testing out of some misguided belief that it is an effective way to assert dominance over adversaries. History already shows how that story ends.

Stephen Mihm, a professor of history at the University of Georgia, is coauthor of Crisis Economics: A Crash Course in the Future of Finance. 

November 16, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

A day of peace?

12 November 2025 AIMN Editorial. By Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn, IL  https://theaimn.net/a-day-of-peace/

On Nov. 11, 1919, Armistice Day was established in the United Kingdom to commemorate the armistice that ended World War I a year earlier. Congress later signed on for the U.S. to “perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding between nations” with a day that is “dedicated to the cause of world peace.”

It became known as Veterans Day in 1954. Since then, it has largely become a commercial for promoting American militarism and perpetual war around the world. Today, there are more than 170,000 U.S. troops deployed in more than 80 countries. To a country engaged in perpetual war worldwide, “armistice” is a word that dare not speak its name.

America has enabled and prolonged the war against Russia in Ukraine, killing hundreds of thousands in a war where Ukraine has minimal chance of victory. Not satisfied with that bloodbath, the U.S. has funneled tens of billions of dollars in weapons for Israel to largely obliterate Gaza, killing 70,000 while leaving the remaining 2.2 million Palestinians with little food, water, medicine, electricity or hope.

We regularly bomb innocents in a number of countries, such as Somalia under the Joe Biden and Donald Trump administrations. Senseless U.S. warfare is about the only thing both parties agree upon.

While every decent function of government uplifting the commons loses funding, our defense budget has soured to over $1 trillion.

After 71 years, it’s time for another name change. How about “Peace Day,” to honour people of peace such as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and a true American war hero, Pvt. Chelsea Manning, who spent seven years in prison for outing American war crimes in Iraq? Peace Day would put the focus on peace Nov. 11, not endless war.

It’s time once again, as we did in 1926, to “perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding between nations.”

As John Lennon famously sang, “Give peace a chance.”

November 14, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Stop the nuclear MADness 

by Harlan Ullman,- 11/10/25 , https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/5595645-strategic-nuclear-weapons-resurgence/

For better or for worse, strategic nuclear weapons are back on the docket.

Given that the Cold War ended 35 years ago, most Americans have little understanding of or interest in these weapons that could literally obliterate much if not all of our society. The marvelous Stanley Kubrick movie “Dr. Strangelove” satirized the notion of mutual assured destruction and the Soviet Union’s “doomsday device” that, once triggered, would destroy the world.

During the Cold War, the image of two scorpions in a bottle, representing the U.S. and Soviet Union, was popularized, meaning both could sting the other to death. Decades later, at least three scorpions inhabit that bottle, with the addition of China pursuing a serious strategic nuclear arsenal rivaling that of the other two military superpowers. 

If not in the same bottle, certainly in the same room are the other nuclear states: Britain, France, North Korea, Israel, India and Pakistan. Iran and Saudi Arabia are in the anteroom.

Now, these strategic nuclear matters have been brought to a head by the expiration of the New START Treaty in January and President Trump’s confusing and unhelpful comment that the U.S. will resume testing its nuclear weapons.  

The New START treaty limited both the U.S. and Russia to 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers. Russian President Vladimir Putin has proposed a voluntary extension of the treaty limits on warheads and launchers.

Trump’s comments on testing have completely disrupted the arms control process. By testing, does Trump mean actually exploding current warheads? Does he mean continuing the non-critical testing that does not require actual fission or fusion to take place? Or does he mean testing launchers?

If he’s talking about explosive testing, virtually all experts regard that as highly dangerous and unnecessary.

Worse, in response to Trump’s proposal to build a Golden Dome around and over America to defend against missile or bomber attacks, Putin held a press conference discussing Russia’s efforts surrounding the Skyfall and Poseidon missiles. 

Skyfall is NATO’s designation for a nuclear powered, nuclear tipped cruise missile with nearly unlimited range. Poseidon is a nuclear powered, nuclear tipped unmanned underwater torpedo with transoceanic range.

While Skyfall is subsonic, flying feet above the surface, it could attack from any direction. Poseidon could sail undetected into U.S. harbors — say New York or San Francisco — and detonate a multi-megaton warhead

Megaton weapons can deliver 1,000 times more explosive power than the two nuclear bombs dropped on Japan in 1945. Multiple Poseidon attacks could destroy the American economy.

The strategic nuclear balance has been further complicated by conventional weapons with the capacity to strike and destroy these systems with pinpoint accuracy — cruise missiles such as Tomahawk and long-range convention bombs that can be launched at significant distances from targets. None of these have been included in arms control agreements, and the U.S. abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001.

The U.S. government has also lost experts who were deeply engaged in these issues. For example, not one of the current Joint Chiefs of Staff has any experience along these lines, as strategic arms control has not been a high priority. The same is true in the White House.

China, so far, has been unwilling to engage in arms control talks, probably waiting until it has expanded its own nuclear capability to a certain level. So under these circumstances, what if anything, can be done beyond leaders agreeing that nuclear weapons can never be used and nuclear war can never be fought?

The options are not good. Engagement with China must continue. Perhaps agreements for mutual inspection of nuclear systems to ensure safety and reliability can begin confidence-building measures. Military-to-military talks on nuclear issues and safeguards are always a good idea. However, given Russia’s intervention in Ukraine, is anyone willing to raise this possibility?

The only concrete step is to ensure that kinetic nuclear testing — namely exploding warheads underground or on the surface and in the air — remains forbidden. Otherwise, a new and unwanted and potentially threatening arms race will be on, and that cannot be permitted.

Harlan Ullman, Ph.D. is UPI’s Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at the Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He and former United Kingdom Defense Chief David Richards are the authors of a forthcoming book on preventing strategic catastrophe

November 12, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment