Category: Nuclear Proliferation

New START Treaty Expires, Ending Nuclear Arms Control

The New START treaty between the United States and Russia expired on February 6, 2026, eliminating the only binding cap on deployed nuclear warheads—set at 1,550 per side. The expiration marks the first time in over 50 years that no strategic arms control limits exist between the world’s two largest nuclear powers, each possessing roughly 5,250 warheads. Without the treaty’s verification mechanisms, data-sharing protocols, and dialogue channels, American and Russian officials lost transparency into each other’s arsenals and intentions, creating a low-trust environment vulnerable to miscalculation.

President Trump dismissed urgency around negotiating a replacement, stating in January that if the treaty “expires, it expires” and claiming he would pursue “a better agreement” involving China. However, Beijing has refused to participate in nuclear disarmament talks, arguing it is “neither fair nor reasonable” given the vast disparity between its 600 warheads and those of the U.S. and Russia. A Trump administration official told NBC News the door remained open to talks with both nations, but no formal negotiations or counter-proposals have materialized.

Trump’s pattern of weaponizing federal authority against officials who resist his demands reflects broader disregard for institutional independence. Former Soviet negotiator Nikolai Sokov warned the world has reverted to early Cold War mentality, where uncertainty and acceptance of conflict were high. Without predictability mechanisms, China is expanding its arsenal by roughly 100 warheads annually and is projected to possess over 1,000 by 2030—a buildup experts attribute partly to the absence of verification checks and transparency.

Former President Obama stated the expiration would “pointlessly wipe out decades of diplomacy and could spark another arms race that makes the world less safe.” UN Secretary-General António Guterres called it a “grave moment” for international peace and security. Russia suspended the treaty in early 2023 over U.S. support for Ukraine but offered in September to voluntarily abide by its limits for one additional year—an offer Trump called “a good idea” but to which Washington provided no official response.

Experts warn that without a replacement agreement within five to seven years, an unrestricted nuclear arms race focusing on accuracy, sophistication, and interceptor-resistant designs rather than warhead quantity becomes likely. Sokov cautioned that “the sooner we start talking, the better the chance that we will be able to, once again, start regulating the nuclear arms race before it becomes irreversible.”

(Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/world/russia/nuclear-arms-race-start-treaty-expires-russia-china-trump-putin-xi-rcna257012)

Trump Deploys Massive Armada to Iran Threatening Military Escalation

President Trump announced on Truth Social Wednesday that a “massive Armada” is en route to Iran, demanding the regime negotiate and threatening escalated military strikes. Trump stated the fleet is “moving quickly, with great power, enthusiasm, and purpose,” and explicitly warned that “the next attack will be far worse” if Iran does not comply with his demand for a nuclear weapons-free agreement.

Trump referenced a prior military operation against Iran called “Operation Midnight Hammer,” describing it as “a major destruction of Iran,” and framed the current deployment as leverage to force Iranian leadership to “Come to the Table” and accept his terms. He invoked artificial urgency, declaring “Time is running out, it is truly of the essence,” while using characteristic ultimatums demanding Iran “MAKE A DEAL!”

The military escalation coincides with ongoing civil unrest in Iran, where reports document thousands of deaths during protests. Trump previously threatened military intervention to support demonstrators, then reversed course by claiming “the killing in Iran is stopping” and signaling openness to negotiation with Iranian rulers—a pattern demonstrating his willingness to weaponize humanitarian crises for geopolitical leverage.

Trump made similar threats to reporters aboard Air Force One returning from Davos last week, stating “We’re watching Iran” and confirming that ships were being repositioned “just in case.” These repeated warnings escalate tensions through military posturing while Trump simultaneously presents himself as open to diplomatic resolution, a contradiction characteristic of his pattern of weaponizing foreign relations for domestic political effect.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/trump-reveals-hes-sending-massive-armada-to-iran-warns-regime-next-attack-will-be-far-worse/)

Trump Orders Pentagon to Initiate Immediate Nuclear Testing

U.S. President Donald Trump announced that he has directed the Department of Defense to commence testing of nuclear weapons immediately. This decision was conveyed through a Truth Social post as Trump cited the ongoing nuclear testing programs of other nations as the impetus for his announcement.

Trump’s statement comes ahead of an impending meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea, highlighting the geopolitical tensions surrounding nuclear capabilities. This assertion indicates a potential escalation in the arms race, as Trump seeks to ensure that the U.S. maintains a competitive stance concerning its nuclear arsenal.

The timing of this announcement has drawn attention amid the complexities of North Korea’s and China’s nuclear programs. Analysts suggest that Trump’s aggressive stance may further complicate diplomatic relations with these nations, particularly in the context of ongoing trade discussions.

This move is reflective of Trump’s broader strategy regarding national security and defense policies, which have often prioritized a robust military posture. The implications of restarting nuclear tests may provoke responses from both allies and adversaries, signaling a significant shift in defense strategy.

As tensions rise, the Pentagon’s upcoming actions will be closely monitored by international observers, underscoring the delicate balance of power in the global arena regarding nuclear deterrence.

Trump Administration Expedites Uranium Mining, Ignoring Environmental Risks and Community Health

The Trump administration has greenlit the reopening of the Velvet-Wood uranium mine in southeastern Utah, utilizing a newly expedited environmental review process. This approval marks a concerning trend under the Trump administration, as it prioritizes rapid exploitation of natural resources over environmental safety and community well-being. The Canadian firm Anfield Energy will take charge of the mining operations, which also include vanadium—used in steel production for various industries.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum hailed the decision, claiming it represents a “turning point” for America’s mineral future and a method to reduce dependence on foreign suppliers. However, such measures reflect an alarming shift towards prioritizing corporate interests over environmental concerns, with critics denouncing the fast-tracking of the environmental assessment process as reckless and potentially harmful to adjacent communities.

The USDA’s approval follows a 14-day assessment, intended to expedite projects deemed critical to U.S. mineral security. This is part of a broader agenda to increase domestic mining capabilities. Yet, the short review period raises red flags regarding the adequacy of environmental protections. Environmental groups have vehemently opposed this initiative, warning that it poses real risks to local ecosystems and public health.

As the mining project aims to extract already-known mineral deposits, the claims of job creation and infrastructure improvements appear to be a smokescreen. The potential for long-lasting damage to surrounding environments cannot be overlooked, particularly as the U.S. grapples with increasing environmental challenges. Real prosperity should not come at the expense of the health of communities and their inhabitants.

Overall, the Trump administration’s push to expedite uranium mining is emblematic of a broader, troubling trend in governance that favors corporate profit at the cost of environmental integrity. As these policies unfold, it becomes essential to remain vigilant about their impacts on both local populations and the global environment.

Trump Calls For Iran Nuclear Deal He Killed

Donald Trump has publicly issued threats to Iran, reiterating that a military option remains viable if a nuclear deal is not achieved. During an interview with Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo, Trump referred to a letter he sent to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, urging negotiations to prevent a military confrontation. The former president emphasized that while he prefers diplomacy, the possibility of military action is looming if Iran continues pursuing nuclear capabilities.

Trump’s rhetoric reflects a recurrent theme in his foreign policy approach, characterized by a blend of aggressive posturing and attempts at negotiation. He stated, “There are two ways Iran can be handled: militarily, or you make a deal,” underscoring his inclination to use force while simultaneously expressing a desire to reach an agreement. This duality raises concerns among critics about the unpredictability of Trump’s foreign policy and its potential consequences for global stability.

The conversation also highlighted Trump’s view of the Iranian people, whom he described as “great” despite condemning their leadership as “evil.” This simplification of a complex geopolitical issue is symptomatic of Trump’s broader communication style, where nuanced realities are often overshadowed by emotionally charged language. Such comments can foster misinterpretations of the Iranian populace and prioritize military solutions over diplomatic efforts.

Despite Trump’s claims of support for negotiation, his administration previously dismantled structures that fostered diplomatic engagement, notably withdrawing from the landmark Iran nuclear deal orchestrated by President Obama. This decision has been widely criticized as a contributing factor to escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran, with many experts arguing it undermines future negotiations and jeopardizes regional security.

As tensions mount, Trump’s willingness to resort to military action as a negotiation tactic serves to instill fear rather than foster constructive dialogue. Such threats not only highlight the reckless nature of his foreign policy but also exemplify the broader Republican indifference towards diplomatic resolutions, opting instead for a belligerent approach that could lead to unnecessary conflict.

(h/t: https://www.mediaite.com/news/trump-tells-iran-they-need-to-make-a-nuke-deal-to-avoid-military-solution-im-not-looking-to-hurt-iran/)

Trump Administration’s Reckless NNSA Firings Threaten U.S. Nuclear Security

The recent firings at the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) under the Trump administration reveal a disconcerting lack of awareness concerning national security protocols. Sources indicate that over 300 staff members were dismissed from this crucial agency, which manages America’s nuclear stockpile, primarily due to a misguided and reckless approach by officials who seemingly did not grasp the agency’s responsibilities.

In a troubling turn of events, the Department of Energy initially downplayed these firings, claiming that fewer than 50 individuals were let go, focusing on administrative roles. However, this misrepresentation fails to address the reality that some of those dismissed had vital roles, including oversight of facilities that construct nuclear weapons and guidelines for their safe management.

Congressional leaders expressed alarm over the situation, with reports indicating that many lawmakers were unaware that NNSA plays a pivotal role in maintaining the nuclear deterrent, a cornerstone of American security. One source noted that the disorganization and lack of understanding from the Department of Energy was alarming, with the phrase “Congress is freaking out” reflecting widespread concern among legislators.

Following the backlash, NNSA scrambled to mitigate damages by rescinding some of the earlier terminations, but the chaos raised severe questions about the administration’s handling of nuclear security. The NNSA’s acting administrator later conveyed a desire to keep as many employees on board as possible, reflecting the critical nature of their work in terms of national safety.

The episode underscores a broader pattern of disregard for established governance and expertise under Trump and his administration, raising fears about the future of US nuclear security amidst classic Republican indifference to crucial public safety. This pattern of behavior illustrates ongoing threats to democracy and reality-based governance as Republicans prioritize ideology over informed decision-making.

(h/t: https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/14/climate/nuclear-nnsa-firings-trump/index.html)

Trump administration discussed conducting first U.S. nuclear test in decades

The Trump administration has discussed whether to conduct the first U.S. nuclear test explosion since 1992 in a move that would have far-reaching consequences for relations with other nuclear powers and reverse a decades-long moratorium on such actions, said a senior administration official and two former officials familiar with the deliberations.

The matter came up at a meeting of senior officials representing the top national security agencies May 15, following accusations from administration officials that Russia and China are conducting low-yield nuclear tests — an assertion that has not been substantiated by publicly available evidence and that both countries have denied.

A senior administration official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the sensitive nuclear discussions, said that demonstrating to Moscow and Beijing that the United States could “rapid test” could prove useful from a negotiating standpoint as Washington seeks a trilateral deal to regulate the arsenals of the biggest nuclear powers.

The meeting did not conclude with any agreement to conduct a test, but a senior administration official said the proposal is “very much an ongoing conversation.” Another person familiar with the meeting, however, said a decision was ultimately made to take other measures in response to threats posed by Russia and China and avoid a resumption of testing.

The National Security Council declined to comment.

During the meeting, serious disagreements emerged over the idea, in particular from the National Nuclear Security Administration, according to two people familiar with the discussions. The NNSA, an agency that ensures the safety of the nation’s stockpile of nuclear weapons, didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The United States has not conducted a nuclear test explosion since September 1992, and nuclear nonproliferation advocates warned that doing so now could have destabilizing consequences.

“It would be an invitation for other nuclear-armed countries to follow suit,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. “It would be the starting gun to an unprecedented nuclear arms race. You would also disrupt the negotiations with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, who may no longer feel compelled to honor his moratorium on nuclear testing.”

The United States remains the only country to have deployed a nuclear weapon during wartime, but since 1945 at least eight countries have collectively conducted about 2,000 nuclear tests, of which more than 1,000 were carried out by the United States.

The environmental and health-related consequences of nuclear testing moved the process underground, eventually leading to a near-global moratorium on testing in this century with the exception of North Korea. Concerns about the dangers of testing prompted more than 184 nations to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, an agreement that will not enter into force until ratified by eight key states, including the United States.

President Barack Obama supported the ratification of the CTBT in 2009 but never realized his goal. The Trump administration said it would not seek ratification in its 2018 Nuclear Posture Review.

Still, the major nuclear powers abide by its core prohibition on testing. But the United States in recent months has alleged that Russia and China have violated the “zero yield” standard with extremely low-yield or underground tests, not the type of many-kiloton yield tests with mushroom clouds associated with the Cold War. Russia and China deny the allegation.

Since establishing a moratorium on testing in the early 1990s, the United States has ensured that its nuclear weapons are ready to be deployed by conducting what are known as subcritical tests — blasts that do not produce a nuclear chain reaction but can test components of a weapon.

[The Washington Post]


‘I don’t blame Kim Jong Un’: In dismissing Bolton, Trump sides with North Korean leader — again

Having ousted John Bolton from the White House, President Trump delivered a kick to his former national security adviser to illustrate just how far he had fallen. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, the president said, “wanted nothing to do with” him during diplomatic talks over the past 17 months.

“I don’t blame Kim Jong Un,” he told reporters in the Oval Office.

Trump’s remarks on Wednesday revealed lingering resentment that, in his view, Bolton had threatened to derail the United States’ historic first summit with Kim last year by taking an unnecessarily provocative position in suggesting that Pyongyang must follow the “Libya model” and relinquish all of its nuclear weapons under any prospective deal.

Trump’s willingness to publicly side with Kim over a recently departed senior aide marked the latest in a string of extraordinary episodes in which he has aligned himself with one of the world’s most brutal dictators against individual Americans, the intelligence community, the military and U.S. allies.

Since the second U.S.-North Korea summit in Hanoi in February collapsed without a deal, Trump has sought to rekindle dormant bilateral negotiations by flattering Kim — but also by offering him political cover on a list of provocations that cut against U.S. interests.

This summer alone, the president has:

●Reiterated his belief that joint U.S.-South Korea military drills are “ridiculous and expensive” — this time after receiving a personal letter from Kim complaining about the exercises.

●Declared that the North’s testing of short-range missiles did not violate an agreement with Kim, prompting Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to call the tests a clear violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions.

●Endorsed, while on a state visit to Tokyo, North Korean state media’s mockery of former vice president Joe Biden as a “fool of low IQ,” saying he agreed.

●Stated that he would not have authorized using Kim’s family members as spies against the regime amid reports that the CIA had cultivated the dictator’s half brother as an intelligence asset. (Kim Jong Nam was assassinated in Malaysia in 2017, at the North Korean leader’s direction, according to South Korea’s spy agency.)

Former U.S. officials said Trump’s approach with Kim fits his pattern of trying to maintain good personal relationships with hostile foreign leaders in hope that it will pay off at the negotiating table. Yet they emphasized that the strategy has not led to breakthroughs on Trump’s biggest foreign policy initiatives, including an effort to secure a trade deal with China.

“It’s his idea that you have to be utterly obsequious with your negotiating partner to suggest you’re a good guy and they should deal with you,” said Christopher Hill, who served as the lead negotiator in the George W. Bush administration during the Six Party Talks with North Korea. “Of course, he’s got very little to show for it. The North Koreans have just pocketed it.”

Although Trump has emphasized that Kim has abided by a private pledge in Singapore to refrain from testing nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles, experts say the North has improved the accuracy and maneuverability of its short-range arsenal.

Trump suggested nuking hurricanes to stop them from hitting U.S.

President Trump has suggested multiple times to senior Homeland Security and national security officials that they explore using nuclear bombs to stop hurricanes from hitting the United States, according to sources who have heard the president’s private remarks and been briefed on a National Security Council memorandum that recorded those comments.

Behind the scenes: During one hurricane briefing at the White House, Trump said, “I got it. I got it. Why don’t we nuke them?” according to one source who was there. “They start forming off the coast of Africa, as they’re moving across the Atlantic, we drop a bomb inside the eye of the hurricane and it disrupts it. Why can’t we do that?” the source added, paraphrasing the president’s remarks.

  • Asked how the briefer reacted, the source recalled he said something to the effect of, “Sir, we’ll look into that.”
  • Trump replied by asking incredulously how many hurricanes the U.S. could handle and reiterating his suggestion that the government intervene before they make landfall. 
  • The briefer “was knocked back on his heels,” the source in the room added. “You could hear a gnat fart in that meeting. People were astonished. After the meeting ended, we thought, ‘What the f—? What do we do with this?'”

Trump also raised the idea in another conversation with a senior administration official. A 2017 NSC memo describes that second conversation, in which Trump asked whether the administration should bomb hurricanes to stop them from hitting the homeland. A source briefed on the NSC memo said it does not contain the word “nuclear”; it just says the president talked about bombing hurricanes.

  • The source added that this NSC memo captured “multiple topics, not just hurricanes. … It wasn’t that somebody was so terrified of the bombing idea that they wrote it down. They just captured the president’s comments.”
  • The sources said that Trump’s “bomb the hurricanes” idea — which he floated early in the first year and a bit of his presidency before John Bolton took over as national security adviser — went nowhere and never entered a formal policy process.

White House response: A senior administration official said, “We don’t comment on private discussions that the president may or may not have had with his national security team.”

  • A different senior administration official, who has been briefed on the president’s hurricane bombing suggestion, defended Trump’s idea and said it was no cause for alarm. “His goal — to keep a catastrophic hurricane from hitting the mainland — is not bad,” the official said. “His objective is not bad.”
  • “What people near the president do is they say ‘I love a president who asks questions like that, who’s willing to ask tough questions.’ … It takes strong people to respond to him in the right way when stuff like this comes up. For me, alarm bells weren’t going off when I heard about it, but I did think somebody is going to use this to feed into ‘the president is crazy’ narrative.”

The big picture: Trump didn’t invent this idea. The notion that detonating a nuclear bomb over the eye of a hurricane could be used to counteract convection currents dates to the Eisenhower era, when it was floated by a government scientist.

  • The idea keeps resurfacing in the public even though scientists agree it won’t work. The myth has been so persistent that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. government agency that predicts changes in weather and the oceans, published an online fact sheet for the public under the heading “Tropical Cyclone Myths Page.”
  • The page states: “Apart from the fact that this might not even alter the storm, this approach neglects the problem that the released radioactive fallout would fairly quickly move with the tradewinds to affect land areas and cause devastating environmental problems. Needless to say, this is not a good idea.”

About 3 weeks after Trump’s 2016 election, National Geographic published an article titled, “Nuking Hurricanes: The Surprising History of a Really Bad Idea.” It found, among other problems, that:

  • Dropping a nuclear bomb into a hurricane would be banned under the terms of the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union. So that could stave off any experiments, as long as the U.S. observes the terms of the treaty.

Atlantic hurricane season runs until Nov. 30.

[Axios]

Reality

The main difficulty with using explosives to modify hurricanes is the amount of energy required. A fully developed hurricane can release heat energy at a rate of 5 to 20×1013 watts and converts less than 10% of the heat into the mechanical energy of the wind. The heat release is equivalent to a 10-megaton nuclear bomb exploding every 20 minutes. According to the 1993 World Almanac, the entire human race used energy at a rate of 1013 watts in 1990, a rate less than 20% of the power of a hurricane.

If we think about mechanical energy, the energy at humanity’s disposal is closer to the storm’s, but the task of focusing even half of the energy on a spot in the middle of a remote ocean would still be formidable. Brute force interference with hurricanes doesn’t seem promising.

In addition, an explosive, even a nuclear explosive, produces a shock wave, or pulse of high pressure, that propagates away from the site of the explosion somewhat faster than the speed of sound. Such an event doesn’t raise the barometric pressure after the shock has passed because barometric pressure in the atmosphere reflects the weight of the air above the ground. For normal atmospheric pressure, there are about ten metric tons (1000 kilograms per ton) of air bearing down on each square meter of surface. In the strongest hurricanes there are nine. To change a Category 5 hurricane into a Category 2 hurricane you would have to add about a half ton of air for each square meter inside the eye, or a total of a bit more than half a billion (500,000,000) tons for a 20 km radius eye. It’s difficult to envision a practical way of moving that much air around.

Attacking weak tropical waves or depressions before they have a chance to grow into hurricanes isn’t promising either. About 80 of these disturbances form every year in the Atlantic basin, but only about 5 become hurricanes in a typical year. There is no way to tell in advance which ones will develop. If the energy released in a tropical disturbance were only 10% of that released in a hurricane, it’s still a lot of power, so that the hurricane police would need to dim the whole world’s lights many times a year.

Trump Swipes at Emmanuel Macron Over Attempts to Broker Iran Talks: Nobody Speaks for the US but the US Itself

President Donald Trump said Thursday that the US would not participate in discussions with Iran should France attempt to be the mediator.

” Nobody speaks for the United States but the United States itself. No one is authorized in any way, shape, or form, to represent us!” the president tweeted Thursday. He added that Iran “desperately wants to talk to the US” but is given “mixed signals” by those “purporting to represent” US interests.

The U.S. has been ramping up pressure on Iran in the form of strict sanctions as of late. Sanctions specifically have been imposed upon  Iran’s foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif accusing him of being an “apologist” for the Islamic Republic.

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani has been asking French President Emmanuel Macron to mediate discussions between the US and Iran regarding sanctions. Iran has reacted to renewed US sanctions aimed at strangling its oil trade by retreating from commitments to limit nuclear activity. Since the US pulled out of the nuclear deal last year,France, Britain and Germany have worked to salvage the deal.

Rouhani’s office quoted him as having told Macron, “Concurrent with attempts by Iran and France to reduce tensions and create helpful conditions for lasting coexistence in the region, we are witnessing provocative actions by the Americans,” according to Radio Farda, the Iranian branch of the US government-funded Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

[Mediaite]

1 2 3 4