Atomic 'Don Quixote' and King 'Nuke Lear' Putin

by Ambassador Thomas Graham (Retired) and David Bernell

President Donald Trump announced on October 29 on Truth Social that he had directed the Pentagon to begin testing nuclear weapons “on an equal basis” with Russia and China. This was in response to announcements by Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier in the same week that Moscow had successfully tested both a nuclear-powered cruise missile and a nuclear-powered torpedo. Both of these can carry nuclear weapons as well, and have far longer ranges than traditional missiles and torpedoes. The military significance and utility of these weapons is debatable, but in the worst-case scenarios, the new Russian missile is considered as a potential “flying Chernobyl” with almost unlimited range (it flew for 15 hours), while the torpedo has been referred to as a “radioactive tsunami” weapon that could wipe out coastal cities without any warning. Moscow has tested a nuclear-powered missile in the past, and Putin has boasted since 2018 about developing a new generation of superweapons, but these announcements carry new significance as relations between Russia and the West continue to be marked by deep hostility and distrust, along with global political and economic confrontation centered around the Russian invasion of Ukraine. These developments increase concern about descending into a new nuclear arms race.

The Russian weapons, to be clear, are worrisome, but they did not involve nuclear explosions or tests of nuclear weapons. They involved using a nuclear reactor – similar to what is used in a nuclear power plant to generate electricity, but far smaller – to fuel a missile and a torpedo. This is something that Trump’s announcement did not make clear, though the Russian government was quick to point out that their tests “certainly cannot be viewed as nuclear testing at all.”

Nuclear Weapons Tests and Test Bans

There has not been a nuclear weapon tested since 2017, when North Korea completed its sixth test. No one else other than North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon since 1998, when India and Pakistan ended their test programs. There have been over 2,000 nuclear weapon tests since 1945, with over 500 of them conducted in the atmosphere, until the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty banned them everywhere but underground for the United States, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom (France stopped above-ground testing in 1974, and China in 1980). The Soviet Union and United States both put a “moratorium” on all their nuclear testing in the early 1990’s, and neither has tested nuclear weapons since that time. Other countries soon followed. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which was completed in 1996 during the post-Cold War period of good relations between the U.S. and Russia, bans all nuclear tests, and it has been signed by 187 countries. However, it has not come into force because the United States and several other countries whose approval is specifically required by the treaty have not yet ratified it. (The United States was the first country to sign the treaty, and President Clinton forwarded it to the U.S. Senate in 1999, but Senate Republicans blocked ratification).

A moratorium in the case of nuclear weapons is simply a statement not to conduct a nuclear weapon test. It is not legally binding, nor does it constitute an international agreement. This policy was first adopted by the Soviet Union in 1991 as that country was falling apart. Then it was adopted by the United States. Congress passed a law in 1992 banning nuclear tests for nine months, and then the incoming Clinton administration extended it in 1993. This extension was a hotly debated topic in the United States government, with Cabinet members and the National Security Council divided. After several meetings of the government’s top foreign policy and intelligence officials, they all eventually came to the conclusion that a moratorium on nuclear testing would strengthen U.S. and global security in the aftermath of the Cold War. (Ambassador Graham was instrumental in bringing about the American adoption of the testing moratorium. He was serving as the Acting Director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency at the time. He participated in all the high-level meetings and was a strong advocate of the moratorium.) Once the United States adopted a moratorium, this initiated similar actions around the world. After the Indian and Pakistani governments agreed to pause their test programs in 1998, it was supported by all states except North Korea, though in 2017 North Korea stated that it would conduct no more nuclear weapons tests.

This worldwide moratorium applies to all types of nuclear weapons tests, just as the CTBT would if it should it ever go into effect. It took several years to get the last holdout to agree to the moratorium, and it is not legally binding as a treaty would be. But it’s all we have. It was expected to serve as policy until the CTBT could come into effect. Because this hasn’t happened, it is difficult to overstate the importance of the moratorium. There is no other global policy, precedent, or agreement on this topic. Because of its existence, there are no nuclear weapons tests anywhere. Undermining it with a resumption of American testing would be reckless and dangerous.

What Is the Trump Administration Thinking?

Even though it has been eight years since the last nuclear weapon test was conducted, President Trump said he issued his call for a resumption of nuclear testing because several other states were already doing so, including Russia, China, Pakistan, and North Korea. First of all, arriving at this conclusion in light of Russian tests of nuclear-powered missiles and torpedoes conflates the issue, drawing a false equivalence between the fuel used for these munitions and the test of a nuclear weapon. Second, the accusation that others are testing nuclear weapons is not correct. The organization that has been set up to monitor global testing and to gather data from 321 stations worldwide has stated that no nuclear tests have taken place since 2017. (Trump was also incorrect in thinking that it is the Department of Defense that carries out nuclear weapons testing. It is actually the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration.)

During the first Trump administration there were discussions among senior American officials about the value of doing another nuclear weapon test. It was argued at the time that the Russians and Chinese had probably conducted secret tests which were not detectable because of their very low yield, perhaps a small fraction of a kiloton. A few days after Trump’s announcement on the resumption of nuclear testing, CIA Director Ratcliffe wrote on social media that Trump is right about Russia and China, pointing to past statements from top officials and news reports that both countries might be conducting nuclear tests beyond what would be permitted by the moratorium. Senator Tom Cotton quickly followed on social media, saying that Ratcliffe told him that both Russia and China had carried out “super-critical tests.”

Saying “super-critical” sounds sort of scary, but what the term refers to is this: “critical” refers to the level of energy released by the lowest level nuclear device. Subcritical means it hasn’t yet exploded, and is part of testing the non-explosive parts of a weapon, which the United States and other countries with nuclear weapons do to ensure the safety and reliability of their weapons. This is consistent with the moratorium; such tests are permitted. Super-critical means the device has exploded in a very low-yield test, and this is a violation of the moratorium. Doing this means a country would not be in compliance with their commitment. In addition, super-critical tests are also against the terms of the CTBT, but since it has never entered into force, consideration that any tests are in violation of the treaty are irrelevant as a legal matter.

What Is the Appropriate Response?

In light of the recent Russian missile and torpedo tests, and the sense that Russia and China may have conducted low-yield tests that have never been detected or confirmed, the question becomes what should be done about this.

One side of the argument is that Russia and China see both a political and military benefit from their tests. So if they are in a stronger position, or even if they only believe they are, this represents a threat to the United States. Therefore, the United States should do something that could provide it similar benefits, or at least diminish Russia and China’s view of their own strength. This seems to be the argument President Trump is making: we have a security problem and we have to act. As he said, “We’re the only country that doesn’t test, and I don’t want to be the only country that doesn’t test.”

The other side of the debate also addresses both military and political concerns. Militarily, it argues that any super-critical tests which might have happened are so small as to be meaningless in terms of representing a security threat. James Acton, co-director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has said, “It’s really difficult to know if somebody else is doing ultralow testing.” Even if such tests were detectable, he added, they may not be of concern. “The only reason for testing at such low yields is nuclear weapons safety. We would prefer they weren’t doing that, but it doesn’t undermine U.S. security.”

With regard to Russia’s recent missile and torpedo tests, it can be argued that while the new Russian weapons might unstoppable if they are launched, or even more threatening than existing nuclear weapons, it is important to remember that there is no proven or reliable defense against the ballistic missiles that deliver nuclear weapons to their targets. This has been true since the first intercontinental missile was deployed, in spite of decades of research and testing of missile defense systems. It is a technical challenge that has been described as “trying to hit a bullet with another bullet.” This feat has been achieved in controlled tests, and progress continues to be made. The U.S. military reports that its anti-missile test program to date has a success rate of about 80 percent. This is remarkable. However, this is nowhere near being a missile defense system could offer the kind of accuracy and reliability necessary in an actual war to destroy multiple missiles and the numerous decoys that would be launched alongside them. President Trump has proposed a comprehensive missile defense called “Golden Dome,” and new research and testing will be pursued, but missile defense still remains an aspiration. Therefore, an improved Russian delivery system for nuclear weapons still represents the same threat that has always existed in the nuclear age.

The political argument against any U.S. nuclear testing is that doing so, especially in a way that is a clear violation of the moratorium, adds fuel to a new nuclear arms race by violating the norms, practices, and accepted understanding of the moratorium. As the director of the Arms Control Association stated, “It’s not militarily, technically or politically necessary. It would lead to a chain reaction of nuclear tests by other countries, including Russia, probably North Korea, maybe China.” This outcome, which points in the direction of a renewed nuclear arms race, which could involve more countries than just the United States and Russia, is so problematic that it must absolutely be avoided. Deterrence worked during the Cold War when there were only two heavily armed nuclear powers standing off against each other. It is not certain the same thing would happen in a world with many more countries in possession of nuclear weapons.

Considering that low yield tests cannot be confirmed, and that even if they are, they do not threaten U.S. security, it is not worth going down the road toward anything that would lead to more nuclear tests by the United States or Russia. There is nothing to gain in terms of American security, but there is great potential harm. Anything that undermines the testing moratorium and the existing global system that limits the production and spread of nuclear weapons has significant implications. Preserving this system is paramount.

What Now?

In an effort to reduce the alarm caused by President Trump’s statements, U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright has clarified that the United States is not planning any tests that involve nuclear explosions. He stated that any testing will involve “system tests” that are “non-critical.” Super-critical tests are a violation of the moratorium that the United States has committed to, and it has kept that commitment over the years. The Secretary’s statement offers reassurance. It has also been reported that the Secretary and the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration are planning to meet with Trump to dissuade him from renewed nuclear testing. Still, a statement from the White House said that, “Nothing has been eliminated from consideration as all decision-making authority lies with the President.”

Other countries are not upsetting the existing nuclear regime. The view that they are is incorrect. The United States is not being left behind or suffering from diminished nuclear security due to new missiles and torpedoes, or the low-yield testing of other countries. The view that the United States can enhance its power and security by violating the moratorium and resuming nuclear tests is based on fears and illusions. President Trump should stay away from “tilting at windmills” like Don Quixote, responding to things that aren’t there or overreacting to minor distractions.

By the same token, Russia’s actions contribute to diminished global security. The country is developing several new weapons systems such as the nuclear-powered missile and torpedo, along with several others that Putin says will counteract the military threat from the United States. Moreover, the Russian government has said that it is ready to escalate if the United States resumes nuclear testing, promising that “Russia will respond in kind.” Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s former President and Prime Minister (currently serving on the Russian Security Council as Deputy Chair), pointing out that Trump’s thinking and intentions are unclear, stated that “No one knows what Trump meant about ‘nuclear testing’ (he probably doesn’t himself). But he’s the president of the United States. And the consequences of such words are inescapable: Russia will be forced to assess the expediency of conducting full-fledged nuclear tests itself.”

More broadly, global security is threatened by Vladimir Putin’s inflated view of his power and world-changing importance, his desire to be viewed on par with Ivan the Terrible, Catherine the Great, and Peter the Great, and his disastrous and horrific invasion of Ukraine. Putin is reminiscent of Shakespeare’s King Lear, who enjoyed immense power and whose inflated sense of himself drove him to seek praise and flattery from those around him for being a great man. The Bard’s lessons remind us all that such delusions and the actions that emanate from them lead only to destruction and death.

Trump and Putin are doing little to challenge the notion that they are not a great combination to have at the helm, determining the future of global politics.