What to Make of Trump’s Wild Nuclear Threat

Sign up for the Slatest^[1] to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.

Was President Donald Trump threatening to escalate the nuclear arms race in a social media post—or was he just spouting nonsense? A bit of both, it seems.

In a message^[2] posted minutes before his meeting in South Korea with China’s President Xi Jingping, Trump wrote, “Because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis. That process will begin immediately.”

He later elaborated^[3] to reporters that although the U.S. stopped testing nuclear weapons a long time ago, Russia and China were still testing, so we have to start testing again too.

Both statements—the social media post and the remarks to reporters—are pure mishmash.

First, if he was referring to nuclear bombs and warheads, the United States, Russia, and China have all abstained from testing for the past 30 years. This restraint stems from three factors: 1) the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty^[4], signed in 1996, which all three nations have observed even though their parliaments didn’t ratify^[5] it; 2) a desire to avoid the resumption of an arms race, which further testing could spark; and 3) a recognition that lab-testing^[6] the components of warheads can gauge their reliability well enough—exploding them in underground test sites is not necessary.

Second, if Trump was referring to the missiles that carry nuclear warheads, the United States, Russia, and China all regularly conduct those sorts of tests.

In other words, whatever Trump meant by “nuclear weapons,” the U.S. is testing—or not testing—them on “an equal basis” with Russia and China.

It could be that Trump had recently been briefed on Russia’s test of a cruise missile powered by nuclear propulsion^[7]. If so, some aide should have informed him that this weapon, if it exists, is nothing to worry about. Let the Russians waste money on the program; no need for us to match their folly.

Then again, judging from his conflation of missiles and warheads, or perhaps his unawareness of the distinction between the two, Trump isn’t informed about such matters—or, if he is, he doesn’t pay close attention.

The timing of Trump’s announcement is also a mystery. Did he think the threat of resumed nuclear testing would strengthen his leverage over China’s President Xi? Trump may argue that it did. After their summit, he told reporters that it was a huge success—rating it 12 on a scale from 1 to 10^[8]. It was a good meeting, but its main accomplishment was ending, or at least postponing, a trade war that Trump had blithely started and was about to lose^[9]. This had been worked out in advance by the two sides’ emissaries, as is often the case. Brandishing nukes had nothing to do with it.

One fine point: If Trump does want to resume the testing of nuclear warheads, he should have sent the order not to the “Department of War” (as he now calls the Defense Department) but rather to the Department of Energy.

Trump’s post is either baffling or wrong on so many points, large and small. Let’s take his message one sentence at a time.

“The United States has more Nuclear Weapons than any other country.” Actually, this isn’t true. In terms of nukes aimed at each other, the U.S. has more than Russia—but Russia has a larger number of total nukes^[10], due to its sizable stockpile of short- and medium-range nuclear weapons^[11], aimed mainly at Europe. The U.S., on the other hand, scuttled almost all its weapons of that type long ago. But this is irrelevant. In an arms competition, as long as each side can wreak havoc on the other, destroying all the targets it needs to in order to deter an attack or “limit damage” if war can’t be deterred, it doesn’t matter which side has slightly larger numbers.

“This was accomplished [Trump says of America’s alleged superiority], including a complete update and renovation of existing weapons, during my First Term in office. Because of the tremendous destructive power, I HATED to do it, but had no choice!”

This is highly misleading. President Barack Obama ordered the renovation, as part of a deal to win Senate ratification of the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia. (Obama was tricked into the deal^[16]. In exchange for getting ratification, he agreed to “modernize or replace” the entire arsenal of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and bomber aircraft. But after he left office, Republicans claimed “modernize” meant “replace.”) Both Joe Biden and Trump funded the new weapons’ development, but owing to staggering delays, none of them have yet been deployed. In any case, fielding them would mean replacing the existing weapons, not enlarging the arsenal’s size.

“Russia is second [i.e., it’s in second place to the U.S. in nuclear numbers], and China is a distant third, but will be even within 5 years.” On Russia as No. 2, see above. As for China, intelligence agencies estimate that it will have 1,000 nukes by 2030^[17]—only about one-third as many as the U.S. or Russia—but yes, the Chinese are building more nukes.

This being the case, Trump would have made more dramatic news—and perhaps upped his quest to win the Nobel Peace Prize—if he’d proposed opening arms-reduction talks with Russia and China. We have more nukes than we need. Air Force officers recently claimed that the delays in their new Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile don’t much matter because the 400 existing Minuteman III ICBMs (which the Sentinels were to replace) will remain serviceable until 2050^[19]. So it would be in our narrow national security interests, as well as a boon to world stability, if the three largest nuclear powers all scaled back the size of their arsenals.

When he meets with Xi in China early next year, Trump should put that on the agenda—for his ego and for our well-being.

Sign up for Slate’s evening newsletter.