October 30, 2025 • 15 mins
In this episode, we examine President Donald Trump’s directive to restart U.S. nuclear weapons testing — the first such move in over three decades — and what it signals for global strategic stability. We explore the context: China’s accelerating stockpile growth, Russia’s recent nuclear-capable missile tests, and the weakening framework of arms-control treaties such as the Comprehensive Nuclear‑Test‑Ban Treaty (CTBT).
We unpack the numbers — how the U.S. arsenal compares with China’s and the risks of a renewed nuclear arms race — and the broader implications for U.S. foreign policy, deterrence strategy, and global security.
Will this mark a new era of nuclear‐one-upmanship? What does “testing on an equal basis” really mean in geopolitical terms? And how will allies and rivals respond?
Tune in to the end for expert commentary, and subscribe/follow to stay updated with global defence and political affairs.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-political-current--6768289/support.
We unpack the numbers — how the U.S. arsenal compares with China’s and the risks of a renewed nuclear arms race — and the broader implications for U.S. foreign policy, deterrence strategy, and global security.
Will this mark a new era of nuclear‐one-upmanship? What does “testing on an equal basis” really mean in geopolitical terms? And how will allies and rivals respond?
Tune in to the end for expert commentary, and subscribe/follow to stay updated with global defence and political affairs.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-political-current--6768289/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the debate. We are diving into really a
monumental inflection point in US nuclear strategy today. President Trump
recently instructed the Department of Defense, which has been renamed
the Department of War, to quote immediately restart US nuclear
weapons testing. This effectively ends a thirty three year self
(00:20):
imposed moratorium, the longest continuous period of restraint really since
the dawn of the nuclear age.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
It's a huge policy reversal, a decision with genuinely global ramifications,
and it forces us to critically examine the priorities, you know,
deterrence versus stability and what's clearly a rapidly evolving strategic environment.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
And I'll be arguing that this is a dangerous, fundamentally
unwarranted escalation. It represents, I believe, in overreaction that ignores
the overwhelming quantitative superiority the US still possesses and frankly
guarantees the initiation of a new, costly and destabilizing nuclear
arms race. And I'll present the case that resils doming
tests is a strategically necessary, responsive action. The evidence shows
(01:08):
that key rivals are accelerating their threats and well dissolving
the international guardrails so unilateral adherence to an outdated moratorium
in this context, it really becomes a strategic liability.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
Okay, let's maybe begin by establishing the facts regarding the
scale of the threat, because the position that testing is
necessary seems to hinge on the idea that the threat
environment has reached some kind of existential tipping point, and
I believe that threat has been severely exaggerated. The raw
(01:45):
numbers will they simply do not support the idea of
imminent parody. Look, as of twenty twenty three, the US
maintains an operational arsenal of what three thy seven hundred
and eight nuclear weapons now. In contrast, china style pile
stood at four hundred and ten warheads in the same year.
That's a quantitative disparity of nearly nine to one. So
(02:06):
this narrative that China is approaching parody within five years,
as some have suggested, it just seems unsupported by the
current data. Even acknowledging their rapid growth, the sheer size
and sophistication of the existing US deterrent provides a massive
strategic buffer. Furthermore, we need to address the specific qualitative
challenges cited by the administration. Yes Russia tested nuclear powered
(02:30):
systems like the Brevestnic cruise missile and the Poseidon underwater drone.
But crucially the source material clarifies. These are platforms drawing
on nuclear propulsion fission for power, which is distinct from
testing the actual nuclear explosive device itself. The CTBT bans explosions,
not nuclear power generation, so responding to a propulsion test
(02:52):
by detonating a warhead is an entirely disproportionate reaction.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
That's an interesting point, though, I would frame this strategic
environment differently. While I absolutely acknowledge the current quantitative lead
three thousand, seven hundred eight versus four to ten, as
you said, it's the trajectory and the novelty of the
threat that matters, not just today's static count. The global
strategic environment has fundamentally shifted, I think, to one of
competitive expansion, rendering that voluntary moratorium well obsolete. First, just
(03:24):
look at China's pace an increase from three hundred and
fifty warheads in twenty twenty two to four hundred and
ten in twenty twenty three. That is significant annual growth.
If that acceleration continues, the buffer does shrink rapidly, which
lends credence to that five year parity forecast, or at
least the concern around it. Second, Russia's qualitative leap. It
has to be taken seriously. The successful testing of the
(03:46):
Poseidon drone, which President Putin claims has unparalleled speed and
depth capabilities, presents a unique challenge to our existing defense systems.
This isn't just about nuclear propulsion. It's about a delivery
system that fundamentally challenges is the survivability of, say, our
coastal infrastructure and our ability to even detect encounter it.
(04:07):
Deterrence requires that we ensure our weapons remain effective and
reliable in the face of these novel threats.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
I'm still not quite convinced by that line of reasoning, because, well,
you seem to be arguing for an explosive response to
what is essentially a delivery systems problem. Let's delve into
the technicals necessity, perhaps, as this is where the debate
truly sharpens. You claim confidence in our deterrent requires testing,
But the US has successfully maintained its arsenal's reliability for
(04:36):
three decades using the Stockpile Storage Your Program the SSP. Right.
The SSP utilizes advanced computer modeling, non nuclear experiments, high
fidelity simulations, all to verify warhead performance without detonations. So
why suddenly is the SSP, a program that has cost
billions and successfully sustained reliability since nineteen ninety two, Why
(04:58):
is it now deemed insufficient manage the risk posed by say,
a new Russian drone. What specific verifiable technical limitation does
the Poseidon expose that only a live debtonation can resolve.
Speaker 3 (05:11):
Okay, that's a necessary challenge, absolutely, and I agree that
the SSP has been successful, very successful for managing aging
warheads and validating legacy designs. However, the SSP is fundamentally limited,
you know, by the fact that it simply cannot replicate
the extreme, full scale physics of a nuclear explosion. When
(05:31):
you're dealing with a new, genuinely unique strategic capability like
the Poseidon, which operates in a radically different and largely
inaccessible environment involving extreme depths, high pressures, potentially unique interception mechanisms,
that technical modeling may simply exceed its reliable parameters. We
aren't just talking about validating an old missile design here.
We are talking about ensuring that our deterrent warheads if
(05:54):
they were deployed against the system like Poseidon function exactly
as designed. That confidence that's certainly a function under novel
stress that's critical for modern deterrence.
Speaker 4 (06:03):
The risk, as I see it, as that if we
wait until the SSP model shows definite instability, well it'll
be too late. Resuming testing acts as an insurance policy
really to maintain the credibility of our deterrent against qualitative
advances that might outpace our simulation capabilities.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
I come at it from a different way. This argument
that modeling is insufficient, Well, it's often used to justify
expansive programs, but it tends to ignore the political cost.
If the technical necessity is truly so marginal, and I
maintain that the SSP's non nuclear hydrodynamic tests and supercomputer
(06:41):
simulations provide sufficient assurance, then testing provides minimal technical gain
at maximum political expense. You're essentially arguing that a marginal
technical uncertainty outweighs the frankly guaranteed diplomatic insecurity collapse that
this action will likely cause. Perhaps we should move the
discussion to the dissolving legal framework, because that's the second
(07:02):
pillar of your justification. You cite Russia's revocation of the
CTBT and the general weakening of treaty guardrails.
Speaker 5 (07:09):
Yes, and that brings us directly to the strategic reality
of non reciprocity. Russia's revocation of its CTBT ratification in
twenty twenty three demonstrates that a major nuclear power has
formally abandoned the norm of constraint. But furthermore, we have
to look at the systematic collapse of the whole Cold
War framework, the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty back
(07:29):
in two thousand and two, the collapse of the IONF
Treaty in twenty nineteen, and well the effective end of
the START framework. The collapse of the inf treaty, for instance,
specifically opened the door for Russia to develop intermediate range
systems that were previously constrained. Similarly, the end of the
ABM Treaty allowed for strategic competition in defensive and offensive
systems to accelerate basically unchecked. The US simply cannot afford
(07:54):
to maintain a unilateral voluntary restraint a political commitment, yes,
formalized by signing the CTBT in nineteen ninety six, but
voluntary nonetheless, when the other major power is actively dismantling
those constraints and simultaneously expanding and modernizing their capabilities. Maintaining
the moratorium now signals weakness. I believe it invites further
(08:16):
non reciprocal expansion.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
That's a compelling argument regarding the systemic breakdown of the
Cold War architecture. I'll grant you that, But the breakdown
of one framework doesn't necessitate the destruction of all remaining guardrails.
Russia's unilateral actions, however, concerning do not require the US
to destroy the underlying political norm that has prevented actual
(08:38):
nuclear detonations for thirty three years. The CTBT is unique,
you see, because it holds tremendous symbolic weight beyond its
legal status. Even if the US never ratified it, signing
it established a powerful political commitment a norm. Resuming tests
provides perfect cover and justification for the three non signatories
that have already tested India, Pakistan, and North Korea. This
(09:02):
act destabilizes the entire non Proliferation Treaty regime, which already
faces immense challenges from states like Israel, India, and Pakistan,
none of whom have ever been signatories ed against a
drone that by your own admission is utilizing nuclear propulsion
not a nuclear explosive device.
Speaker 6 (09:19):
Well, I come at it from a different angle. Deterrence
relies not on political norms that rivals are clearly ignoring,
but on credible strength. The non proliferation regime is already
weakened by the very states you mention. By demonstrating that
the US deterrent remains robust and adaptable, and crucially that
we are willing to take the necessary steps to maintain
(09:41):
that edge, we are sending a clear signal. I think
the risk of maintaining a potentially degraded deterrent is far
greater than the risk of prompting a competitive response that
frankly seems already underway given China's expansion in Russia's new platforms.
We have to acknowledge the strategic reality that new addition
to global arsenals could eventually outnumber the decommissioned ones if
(10:03):
proactive steps aren't taken.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
But the historical evidence just speaks directly against that proactive approach,
and this brings us to the most dangerous consequence, triggering
a new arms race. You argue the race is already underway.
I argue that US testing is the guarantee trigger that
will accelerate it exponentially. Look at Cipri's explicit warning about
(10:28):
the world's being on the brink of a new nuclear
arms race. That's critical context. If the US detonates a device,
the first explosion by a major nuclear power since the
nineteen nineties, it guarantees a competitive reaction. We have two
very clear historical precedents. First, the USSR rapidly followed the
US test in nineteen forty nine, initiating the Cold War
(10:50):
arms race. Second, Indian Pakistan tested within days of each
other in nineteen ninety eight. This action won't stabilize the environment,
it will set a dangerous new floor for strategic competition.
Look at Cipriy's explicit warning about the world being on
the brink of a new nuclear arms race. That's critical context.
If the US detonates a device, the first explosion by
(11:11):
a major in nuclear power since the nineteen nineties, it
guarantees a competitive reaction. We have two very clear historical precedents.
The current overall global reduction in warheads, it's a fragile trend,
driven almost entirely by the US and Russia dismantling old
Cold war stockpiles. A new US test would almost certainly
(11:32):
reverse that trend, forcing China, India, maybe Pakistan to accelerate
production and potentially forcing Russia to deploy new warheads. We'd
sacrifice decades of stability for what seems like a marginal
technical assurance.
Speaker 7 (11:47):
I agree, the historical pattern is a cautionary tale, and
you know, intellectual humility demands we consider that risk seriously. However,
the current landscape is fundamentally defined by the absence of
foundational treaties. The guardrails of the Cold War ABMNF start
they provided a predictability that minimized the hair trigger nature
(12:10):
of competition. They are gone. So we are operating in
an environment of great power competition. We're signaling restraint, especially
unilateral restraint, is often interpreted as strategic opportunity by our rivals.
Testing isn't solely about technical validation. It's a signal that
the US will not allow its strategic margin to erode.
The risk of the arms race, serious as it is,
(12:32):
must be balanced against the risk of strategic stagnation. While
our adversaries innovate outside the constraints, we still perhaps unwisely
abide by.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
But the fundamental difference lies in the nature of the
action itself. We are discussing the physical act of detonation.
This is the clear, unambiguous line that the world, including
the US, has respected for a generation. By crossing it,
we forfeit a massive political and moral advantage for a
technical gain that remains I believe unproven in its necessity,
(13:03):
especially given the documented success of the SSP. We would
effectively validate any feature test conducted by North Korea or
indeed any other aspiring nuclear power.
Speaker 8 (13:13):
Okay, So, to summarize my position, the evolving strategic landscape
I believe dictates a change in policy. The evidence of
documented quantitative growth in China, qualitative novel advancement in Russia,
coupled with the collapse of formal treaty guardrails like the CTBT,
all this outweighs the risks associated with ending the moratorium.
(13:35):
This move is necessary to ensure the long term credibility, effectiveness,
and therefore the safety and security of the US deterrent
in a geopolitical environment defined by well great power, competition
and non reciprocal action.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
And my position holds that resuming nuclear testing is a
high stakes, profoundly escalatory move not justified by the overwhelming
quantitative lead the US still possesses, nor by a verifiable
technical necessity that the stockpile stewardship program cannot address. It
(14:10):
ignores the clear lessons of history, the patterns of nineteen
forty nine and nineteen ninety eight, and guarantees the acceleration
of a new global arms race. By breaking this decade's
long norm, the US sacrifices systemic global stability for a
highly questionable short term tactical gain, ultimately making the world
(14:33):
and indeed the US less secure.
Speaker 9 (14:37):
This discussion certainly highlights the UH the tremendous complexity of
the choice facing strategists balancing the imperative for responsive action
when facing documented expansion and innovation against the profound need
to maintain strategic restraint and stability.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
Indeed, and the material provides critical context for listeners to
weigh the consequences of this truly significant policy shift, forcing
us all to ask where the greater risk truly lies.
Is it in maintaining the thirty three year moratorium or
in being the first major power to break it. There
(15:17):
is certainly much more to explore in the ongoing challenges
to the nuclear landscape,
Welcome to the debate. We are diving into really a
monumental inflection point in US nuclear strategy today. President Trump
recently instructed the Department of Defense, which has been renamed
the Department of War, to quote immediately restart US nuclear
weapons testing. This effectively ends a thirty three year self
(00:20):
imposed moratorium, the longest continuous period of restraint really since
the dawn of the nuclear age.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
It's a huge policy reversal, a decision with genuinely global ramifications,
and it forces us to critically examine the priorities, you know,
deterrence versus stability and what's clearly a rapidly evolving strategic environment.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
And I'll be arguing that this is a dangerous, fundamentally
unwarranted escalation. It represents, I believe, in overreaction that ignores
the overwhelming quantitative superiority the US still possesses and frankly
guarantees the initiation of a new, costly and destabilizing nuclear
arms race. And I'll present the case that resils doming
tests is a strategically necessary, responsive action. The evidence shows
(01:08):
that key rivals are accelerating their threats and well dissolving
the international guardrails so unilateral adherence to an outdated moratorium
in this context, it really becomes a strategic liability.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
Okay, let's maybe begin by establishing the facts regarding the
scale of the threat, because the position that testing is
necessary seems to hinge on the idea that the threat
environment has reached some kind of existential tipping point, and
I believe that threat has been severely exaggerated. The raw
(01:45):
numbers will they simply do not support the idea of
imminent parody. Look, as of twenty twenty three, the US
maintains an operational arsenal of what three thy seven hundred
and eight nuclear weapons now. In contrast, china style pile
stood at four hundred and ten warheads in the same year.
That's a quantitative disparity of nearly nine to one. So
(02:06):
this narrative that China is approaching parody within five years,
as some have suggested, it just seems unsupported by the
current data. Even acknowledging their rapid growth, the sheer size
and sophistication of the existing US deterrent provides a massive
strategic buffer. Furthermore, we need to address the specific qualitative
challenges cited by the administration. Yes Russia tested nuclear powered
(02:30):
systems like the Brevestnic cruise missile and the Poseidon underwater drone.
But crucially the source material clarifies. These are platforms drawing
on nuclear propulsion fission for power, which is distinct from
testing the actual nuclear explosive device itself. The CTBT bans explosions,
not nuclear power generation, so responding to a propulsion test
(02:52):
by detonating a warhead is an entirely disproportionate reaction.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
That's an interesting point, though, I would frame this strategic
environment differently. While I absolutely acknowledge the current quantitative lead
three thousand, seven hundred eight versus four to ten, as
you said, it's the trajectory and the novelty of the
threat that matters, not just today's static count. The global
strategic environment has fundamentally shifted, I think, to one of
competitive expansion, rendering that voluntary moratorium well obsolete. First, just
(03:24):
look at China's pace an increase from three hundred and
fifty warheads in twenty twenty two to four hundred and
ten in twenty twenty three. That is significant annual growth.
If that acceleration continues, the buffer does shrink rapidly, which
lends credence to that five year parity forecast, or at
least the concern around it. Second, Russia's qualitative leap. It
has to be taken seriously. The successful testing of the
(03:46):
Poseidon drone, which President Putin claims has unparalleled speed and
depth capabilities, presents a unique challenge to our existing defense systems.
This isn't just about nuclear propulsion. It's about a delivery
system that fundamentally challenges is the survivability of, say, our
coastal infrastructure and our ability to even detect encounter it.
(04:07):
Deterrence requires that we ensure our weapons remain effective and
reliable in the face of these novel threats.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
I'm still not quite convinced by that line of reasoning, because, well,
you seem to be arguing for an explosive response to
what is essentially a delivery systems problem. Let's delve into
the technicals necessity, perhaps, as this is where the debate
truly sharpens. You claim confidence in our deterrent requires testing,
But the US has successfully maintained its arsenal's reliability for
(04:36):
three decades using the Stockpile Storage Your Program the SSP. Right.
The SSP utilizes advanced computer modeling, non nuclear experiments, high
fidelity simulations, all to verify warhead performance without detonations. So
why suddenly is the SSP, a program that has cost
billions and successfully sustained reliability since nineteen ninety two, Why
(04:58):
is it now deemed insufficient manage the risk posed by say,
a new Russian drone. What specific verifiable technical limitation does
the Poseidon expose that only a live debtonation can resolve.
Speaker 3 (05:11):
Okay, that's a necessary challenge, absolutely, and I agree that
the SSP has been successful, very successful for managing aging
warheads and validating legacy designs. However, the SSP is fundamentally limited,
you know, by the fact that it simply cannot replicate
the extreme, full scale physics of a nuclear explosion. When
(05:31):
you're dealing with a new, genuinely unique strategic capability like
the Poseidon, which operates in a radically different and largely
inaccessible environment involving extreme depths, high pressures, potentially unique interception mechanisms,
that technical modeling may simply exceed its reliable parameters. We
aren't just talking about validating an old missile design here.
We are talking about ensuring that our deterrent warheads if
(05:54):
they were deployed against the system like Poseidon function exactly
as designed. That confidence that's certainly a function under novel
stress that's critical for modern deterrence.
Speaker 4 (06:03):
The risk, as I see it, as that if we
wait until the SSP model shows definite instability, well it'll
be too late. Resuming testing acts as an insurance policy
really to maintain the credibility of our deterrent against qualitative
advances that might outpace our simulation capabilities.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
I come at it from a different way. This argument
that modeling is insufficient, Well, it's often used to justify
expansive programs, but it tends to ignore the political cost.
If the technical necessity is truly so marginal, and I
maintain that the SSP's non nuclear hydrodynamic tests and supercomputer
(06:41):
simulations provide sufficient assurance, then testing provides minimal technical gain
at maximum political expense. You're essentially arguing that a marginal
technical uncertainty outweighs the frankly guaranteed diplomatic insecurity collapse that
this action will likely cause. Perhaps we should move the
discussion to the dissolving legal framework, because that's the second
(07:02):
pillar of your justification. You cite Russia's revocation of the
CTBT and the general weakening of treaty guardrails.
Speaker 5 (07:09):
Yes, and that brings us directly to the strategic reality
of non reciprocity. Russia's revocation of its CTBT ratification in
twenty twenty three demonstrates that a major nuclear power has
formally abandoned the norm of constraint. But furthermore, we have
to look at the systematic collapse of the whole Cold
War framework, the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty back
(07:29):
in two thousand and two, the collapse of the IONF
Treaty in twenty nineteen, and well the effective end of
the START framework. The collapse of the inf treaty, for instance,
specifically opened the door for Russia to develop intermediate range
systems that were previously constrained. Similarly, the end of the
ABM Treaty allowed for strategic competition in defensive and offensive
systems to accelerate basically unchecked. The US simply cannot afford
(07:54):
to maintain a unilateral voluntary restraint a political commitment, yes,
formalized by signing the CTBT in nineteen ninety six, but
voluntary nonetheless, when the other major power is actively dismantling
those constraints and simultaneously expanding and modernizing their capabilities. Maintaining
the moratorium now signals weakness. I believe it invites further
(08:16):
non reciprocal expansion.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
That's a compelling argument regarding the systemic breakdown of the
Cold War architecture. I'll grant you that, But the breakdown
of one framework doesn't necessitate the destruction of all remaining guardrails.
Russia's unilateral actions, however, concerning do not require the US
to destroy the underlying political norm that has prevented actual
(08:38):
nuclear detonations for thirty three years. The CTBT is unique,
you see, because it holds tremendous symbolic weight beyond its
legal status. Even if the US never ratified it, signing
it established a powerful political commitment a norm. Resuming tests
provides perfect cover and justification for the three non signatories
that have already tested India, Pakistan, and North Korea. This
(09:02):
act destabilizes the entire non Proliferation Treaty regime, which already
faces immense challenges from states like Israel, India, and Pakistan,
none of whom have ever been signatories ed against a
drone that by your own admission is utilizing nuclear propulsion
not a nuclear explosive device.
Speaker 6 (09:19):
Well, I come at it from a different angle. Deterrence
relies not on political norms that rivals are clearly ignoring,
but on credible strength. The non proliferation regime is already
weakened by the very states you mention. By demonstrating that
the US deterrent remains robust and adaptable, and crucially that
we are willing to take the necessary steps to maintain
(09:41):
that edge, we are sending a clear signal. I think
the risk of maintaining a potentially degraded deterrent is far
greater than the risk of prompting a competitive response that
frankly seems already underway given China's expansion in Russia's new platforms.
We have to acknowledge the strategic reality that new addition
to global arsenals could eventually outnumber the decommissioned ones if
(10:03):
proactive steps aren't taken.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
But the historical evidence just speaks directly against that proactive approach,
and this brings us to the most dangerous consequence, triggering
a new arms race. You argue the race is already underway.
I argue that US testing is the guarantee trigger that
will accelerate it exponentially. Look at Cipri's explicit warning about
(10:28):
the world's being on the brink of a new nuclear
arms race. That's critical context. If the US detonates a device,
the first explosion by a major nuclear power since the
nineteen nineties, it guarantees a competitive reaction. We have two
very clear historical precedents. First, the USSR rapidly followed the
US test in nineteen forty nine, initiating the Cold War
(10:50):
arms race. Second, Indian Pakistan tested within days of each
other in nineteen ninety eight. This action won't stabilize the environment,
it will set a dangerous new floor for strategic competition.
Look at Cipriy's explicit warning about the world being on
the brink of a new nuclear arms race. That's critical context.
If the US detonates a device, the first explosion by
(11:11):
a major in nuclear power since the nineteen nineties, it
guarantees a competitive reaction. We have two very clear historical precedents.
The current overall global reduction in warheads, it's a fragile trend,
driven almost entirely by the US and Russia dismantling old
Cold war stockpiles. A new US test would almost certainly
(11:32):
reverse that trend, forcing China, India, maybe Pakistan to accelerate
production and potentially forcing Russia to deploy new warheads. We'd
sacrifice decades of stability for what seems like a marginal
technical assurance.
Speaker 7 (11:47):
I agree, the historical pattern is a cautionary tale, and
you know, intellectual humility demands we consider that risk seriously. However,
the current landscape is fundamentally defined by the absence of
foundational treaties. The guardrails of the Cold War ABMNF start
they provided a predictability that minimized the hair trigger nature
(12:10):
of competition. They are gone. So we are operating in
an environment of great power competition. We're signaling restraint, especially
unilateral restraint, is often interpreted as strategic opportunity by our rivals.
Testing isn't solely about technical validation. It's a signal that
the US will not allow its strategic margin to erode.
The risk of the arms race, serious as it is,
(12:32):
must be balanced against the risk of strategic stagnation. While
our adversaries innovate outside the constraints, we still perhaps unwisely
abide by.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
But the fundamental difference lies in the nature of the
action itself. We are discussing the physical act of detonation.
This is the clear, unambiguous line that the world, including
the US, has respected for a generation. By crossing it,
we forfeit a massive political and moral advantage for a
technical gain that remains I believe unproven in its necessity,
(13:03):
especially given the documented success of the SSP. We would
effectively validate any feature test conducted by North Korea or
indeed any other aspiring nuclear power.
Speaker 8 (13:13):
Okay, So, to summarize my position, the evolving strategic landscape
I believe dictates a change in policy. The evidence of
documented quantitative growth in China, qualitative novel advancement in Russia,
coupled with the collapse of formal treaty guardrails like the CTBT,
all this outweighs the risks associated with ending the moratorium.
(13:35):
This move is necessary to ensure the long term credibility, effectiveness,
and therefore the safety and security of the US deterrent
in a geopolitical environment defined by well great power, competition
and non reciprocal action.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
And my position holds that resuming nuclear testing is a
high stakes, profoundly escalatory move not justified by the overwhelming
quantitative lead the US still possesses, nor by a verifiable
technical necessity that the stockpile stewardship program cannot address. It
(14:10):
ignores the clear lessons of history, the patterns of nineteen
forty nine and nineteen ninety eight, and guarantees the acceleration
of a new global arms race. By breaking this decade's
long norm, the US sacrifices systemic global stability for a
highly questionable short term tactical gain, ultimately making the world
(14:33):
and indeed the US less secure.
Speaker 9 (14:37):
This discussion certainly highlights the UH the tremendous complexity of
the choice facing strategists balancing the imperative for responsive action
when facing documented expansion and innovation against the profound need
to maintain strategic restraint and stability.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
Indeed, and the material provides critical context for listeners to
weigh the consequences of this truly significant policy shift, forcing
us all to ask where the greater risk truly lies.
Is it in maintaining the thirty three year moratorium or
in being the first major power to break it. There
(15:17):
is certainly much more to explore in the ongoing challenges
to the nuclear landscape,
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.