So let's see we've allowed all the arms control treaties to lapse, every single major power is investing more in armaments including nuclear delivery systems.
There is a huge active conflict in Ukraine, right in Europe, the Middle East and many other places like Africa. Many more conflicts are brewing like in Latin America, China, India/Pakistan etc.
There should be alarm bells going off. People aren't aware of just how massive and devastating this threat is.
In the 1980s there were huge protests about jucelar weapons that actually resulted in detente and a relaxation of tensions.
Right now tensions and conflicts are rising. Many people think the threat of nuclear weapons went away after the cold war. They never did.
Where are the peace movements? There has to be popular pressure to institute arms control, make peace and ultimately dismantle these nuclear weapons.
The Obama administration negotiated a number of arms control agreements with various nations (including Russia), and won a Peace prize before they even had anything signed.
Other nations are subject to the penalties of the NTBT.
I hope that we all hope that fusion research will displace hazardous waste in energy production.
Peace movements are sponsored by lots of people in lots of nations.
Nixon, for example, worked to smear the pro-Peace antiwar folks as drug user hippies who couldn't figure out free booze at presidential parties who thus deserved to be incarcerated (without conjugal visits, rights over their bodies and their health, library books, or the right to vote) and marginalized.
People voted to cancel saboteurially-wasteful Reagan-Bush cold war star wars bs and invested in free trade and Peace.
The US is the only NATO member state that claims immunity for War Crimes before the ICC International Criminal Court.
The US just bullied other NATO nations into committing to spending 5% of GDP on defense spending by ~~2030~~ 2035 IIRC. Defense ETFs are up since this administration took office in January, and AI datacenter and AI spending are up, but we are now otherwise lacking in economic growth and we've stopped creating new jobs.
All nations suffer the opportunity costs of war; things we could have paid for instead like healthcare, infrastructure, and education will be underfunded due to zero-sum allocation of the proceeds in the coffer to fights that don't net Peaceful returns.
> I hope that we all hope that fusion research will displace hazardous waste in energy production.
AFAIK, both fusion and fission rely on the same neutron radiation to extract energey from the reaction. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think fusion doesn't produce hazardous waste.
The peace movements of the 60s/70s/80s grew up "in the shadow of the mushroom cloud" [1] not only aware of their legacy from WW2, but it was constantly drilled into them that there might be a nuclear attack against them at any second of any day. That threat hasn't existed since 1991. That same generation was also very cognizant of nuclear disaster, as both the Three Mile Island & Chernoybl disasters had just happened. So, they weren't only well aware of what the steaks were, it was figuratively drilled into them from childhood.
I'm sure most people now don't even consider a realistic concern, but just more posturing by two authoratative world leaders. In Putin's case, I'd be mostly inclined to agree with that position, considering he's in a stalemate in Ukraine and has basically reached his "wunderwaffe" stage of the war, where he has essentially nothing left to use to fight an entrenched war with and the only way he sees his position to get anything out with through any sort of diplomacy is via fear. Presumably, he knows it's not a tactic that could ever work. Perhaps it's more for his domestic audience than anything else.
1. People feel "we won the cold war, so the threat of nuclear war is past". I do not think they are entirely wrong (the risk is still much lower) but its complacent to ignore it. I think it is worsened by people clinging to "end of history" theory.
2. Campaigning against nuclear weapons was far easier when the west was winning the cold war and dominated the world economy.
3. People who are worried about existential threats as now focused on climate change. People seem to be able to worry about only one big threat at a time. There are a number of others (space weather is another, pandemics were until we got a rude awakening) that get ignored.
They also look for a new big threat when necessary, to ensure they never run out of threats. I read of "the problem of overpopulation, the gravest of all social problems of our time," in a book written in 1977.
I agree. If 5-7 million person No Kings protests are ignorable blips, and the House of Representatives is only technically in session, what's left, legally?
> In the 1980s there were huge protests about jucelar weapons that actually resulted in detente and a relaxation of tensions.
Really? Yes there were protests, in the west (that sort of thing was generally frowned upon in the Eastern Bloc countries), but they didn't do much.
What I recall happening was that one of the principle parties started to suffer from a worsening economy and could sustainably maintain the spending the cold war demanded. When that party became much more conciliatory, progress on arms control resulted. Didn't end up saving them in the end.
The language that came out around the middle of the Ukraine war was the possibility of a "targeted low-yield tactical nuke". It was almost being talked about as if that's better and fine to do. Orwell lives on, misuse of language is such a thing toward all kinds of bad.
Nuclear testing just means it's game-on. Every other country will need to do testing to match the show of force. This is insanity. None of the doom-sayers were hyperbolic, voting in an idiot is truly dangerous.
Former Apprentice Star Donald Trump wins the US Presidency and re-enables nuclear testing
It is amazing that people only now start talking about this. You'd think that fighting Russia "indirectly" and launching drones and missiles at Moscow would have caused concern up to 3 years ago.
>Where are the peace movements? There has to be popular pressure to institute arms control, make peace and ultimately dismantle these nuclear weapons.
The current peace movement likes nuclear bombs. Which is odd, the old peace movement didnt, but it has been extremely effective difference.
But this distinction has essentially made nobody acknowledge them as a peace movement. Which is crazy, we finally have a peace movement that's successful and they dont get credit.
A lot of the "peace movements" of the past were financially and ideologically supported by the USSR and Russia [1].
There's nothing bad per se to say against pacifism, to the contrary - but the public image of pacifist movements these days has been heavily tarnished by both the obvious Russia-apologetism regarding the Ukraine war [2] and outright glorification of the horrors done by Hamas on Oct 7th.
So, 80 years of occupation, displacement, and killings didn't tarnish them, nor 2 years of bombing civillians enclosed in a walled off plot of land, with 100,000 dead and genocide - but a single day attack where most people just died from friendly fire under a "allow no hostages" doctrine did?
This is some fine astroturfing. They don’t exist anymore because they were commie-funded and also they exist and are cheering for Hamas to kill Israelis. Yes, peace movements are famous for that.
One of the best benefits of the current no live nuclear testing treaties / environment, was that the United States was one of a few countries that had done extensive live tests early on.
The United States is able to sit on its arsenal and data, and with extensive research and simulation validate to a high degree of accuracy that "hey our bombs still work".
Most countries do not have the data/technical expertise/resources to be able to validate with just simulation. But since no-one else is doing live tests, they do not do live tests either.
How much do you want to bet that a subset of the Russian nuclear weapons simply do not work, and that they will only figure this out when they need to 'test' in response to American tests.
> How much do you want to bet that a subset of the Russian nuclear weapons simply do not work, and that they will only figure this out when they need to 'test' in response to American tests
My bet is that most of them are in disrepair. Russia spends around 8 Billion USD on nuclear weapons. France spends around 6 Billion USD on nuclear weapons. Difference is that France has something like 200 warheads, while Russia has something like 5500 warheads.
Furthermore the fact that using of nuclear weapons has extremely low probability of happening is giving a massive space for corruption. Why maintain what you are not going to use? They managed to siphon money from maintenance of armored equipment, why not ICBMs?
We can get to the staggering reality like Russians have less than 100 working nukes and they themselves may not even know which one are those from those 5500
>My bet is that most of them are in disrepair. Russia spends around 8 Billion USD on nuclear weapons. France spends around 6 Billion USD on nuclear weapons. Difference is that France has something like 200 warheads, while Russia has something like 5500 warheads.
US spend: 57 billion USD; US GDP: 29,000 billion. US spend on nukes as % of GDP: 0.19%
Russia spend: 8 billion USD; Russia GDP: 2173 billion. Russia spend on nukes as % of GDP: 0.36%
France spend: 6 billion USD; France GDP: 3174 billion. French spend on nukes as % of GDP: 0.18%.
Or, they do have a 100 working ICBMs and they do actually know which ones are those. The rest of the warheads in storage are not really maintained. Russians are corrupt as hell, but they are not actually incompetent when they need to have something working.
Nuclear non-proliferation only really works when no one feels the need for nuclear weapons in the first place. As soon as countries start feeling threatened or distrust each other, the whole idea falls apart. It’s easy to agree on disarmament when everyone feels safe, but when fear enters the picture, every nation starts looking for its own button to press.
Sadly, the world learned this lesson the hard way from Ukraine’s example: a country that gave up its nuclear arsenal for security guarantees, only to be invaded by the very power that signed them.
Yup. The last test from Russia was in 1990. China was in 1996. China was much less advanced than now compared to the US (proportionally) and Russia/USSR was into a crisis and didn't even exist as a country (Russia) back then. The US is just doing another gift to Russia and China.
For the Russians it would be a mistake to rely on the unreliability or inferiority of their weapons - they historically are very adept at addressing those with sheer numbers.
The statement lacked any detail. It's just attention whoring.
The US is conducting nuclear tests periodically just like other nuclear powers. Subcritical nuclear testing is allowed.
The last one was in 2024 https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/articles/nnsa-completes-subcriti... "NNSA successfully executed a subcritical experiment in the PULSE facility at the Nevada National Security Site. The experiment was executed in partnership with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory."
There's large practical and psychological differences between subcritical experiments in labs, and detonating megaton-sized nuclear weapons in underground tests. (At least I hope it's still underground; with this leadership, anything is possible).
The US hasn't detonated a nuclear weapon since 1992. You can call the distinction a technicality if you like, but it doesn't seem like one to me.
Subcritical experiments are done in underground test sites. US does them 1,000 feet underground inside boreholes in Nevada test site because the explosion releases plutonium. Hiroshima has a Peace "Watch" Tower where they show number of days since last nuclear experiment and they count subcritical tests also.
There is psychological effect, but it's not that important. More important is keeping nuclear test ban in effect. If the US does test, Russia and China will follow.
What statement is attention whoring? The statements made by the President himself?
The article you linked says this:
> This experiment performed as predicted; consistent with the self-imposed moratorium on nuclear explosive testing that the United States has held since 1992, it did not form a self-sustaining, supercritical chain reaction.
And yet, in the BBC article, Trump is said to have said:
> President Donald Trump has called on US military leaders to resume testing
Pretty obvious he doesn't mean "resume 2024 testing". He also said this:
> "With others doing testing, I think it's appropriate that we do also,"
Which would conflict with resuming the testing that was done in 2024 (if it ever stopped).
> Trump's announcement did not include details of how the tests would occur
Again, if it was what was happening in 2024, what new details would need to be added?
He has been obsessed with using nuclear weapons since he took office 2016. He even proposed nuking a hurricane.
> "With others doing testing, I think it's appropriate that we do also,"
Others are only testing the delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons (missiles, submarines), not the nuclear weapons themselves. So "Because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis" may also mean that the weapons won't be detonated in these tests.
Who is attention whore and bullshitter. For any other president statements equal policy, that's not so with Trump.
The statement is so vague that it does not indicate out of ordinary nuclear testing. The statement was made in TruthSocial. There is no presidendtial action (proclamation, memorandum, or executive order.) He might be just talking shit.
You may be missing the forest for the trees; the worrying aspect is not about whether subcritical tests have taken place in controlled environments and been carried out by skilled and talented individuals. What makes everyone nervous is that a tyrannical equine [0] and its ponies are champing at the bit to make use of nuclear weapons as a way to pressure detracting countries that are resistant to fascism and to control the world.
This follows in the wake of some fast-moving developments in the nuclear-war field. If you haven't been following it: on the one hand, the US leadership is championing a trillion-dollar space-based missile defense for, quote, "forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland"—i.e. upending "Mutually Assured Destruction"[0,1]. In response (not an immediate response—this has been going back-and-forth since the US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in 2002), Russia just days ago test-flew a *nuclear-powered* subsonic cruise missile for 14,000 kilometers[2,3]. That machine's intended for delivering nuclear weapons to the US, in a way that putatively sidesteps the current ideas for missile defenses.
I really recommend watching A House Of Dynamite, the new movie by Kathryn Bigelow, which provides a highly realistic view of just how insane the entire nuclear system is. All of us live in a constant state of enormous danger: we are just 20 minutes away from apocalypse at all times. Even if you believe that nuclear deterrence is what prevents great power conflict, there is no avoiding the fact that it would take just one mistake or one technical failure or one mentally ill submarine commander to end civilization. We have to fix this, not make it worse!
Not one: several mistakes, or several failures, or several people in a submarine. Those systems all have multiple stages that require several validation steps to work, we do that for way less sensitive processes.
Nonetheless, yes, we're still on the brink of something gloomy. The movie is quite good, and would massively gain from spinoffs showing what happens in realtime in other countries too.
I thought that movie was so disappointing. I enjoyed the first part of it but then it just starts repeating the same conversations from different camera angles over and over again, and finally chickens out with one of those "you interpret this!" endings without answering any questions. I had to rewind to see if I blacked out when the credits rolled.
I thought it was excellent. And I was disappointed with the ending, but I also don't know that any other ending would have been better. The point of the ending to me is that literally no one on earth knows what would happen beyond that point.
Our very civilization is Schrodinger's box that's a few mins away from being opened.
> "Oooh, nothing works, ooohh, we're going to die"
I mean, to be fair, this is the actual situation with nuclear weapons.
There's nothing you can do. You just... die. Everyone. There's no magic bullshit the US can pull out of it's ass to prevent it. One singular nuclear warhead can be enough to eradicate the entire population in the US.
This is likely a pretty big win for China/Russia if he follows through with it - USA has advanced nuclear weapon simulation capabilities which almost certainly outstrip theirs, so has a reduced need to conduct non sub-critical tests.
It doesn't really matter how advanced your supercomputing infrastructure is .... the simulation is as good as the input and data from actual tests.
The big question is whether China is confident enough with the data they have from 47 tests.
Any non-subcritical testing is a gift to China as they are severely lagging behind US on number of tests conducted and therefore amount of data collected about warhead design.
Resumption of tests would add fresh data to verify new warhead designs over the decades since the last test. US would have a lesser need for new data given the amount of testing done during the cold war.
If US does conduct a nuclear test I bet a whole slew of test from China would come very shortly after that. Work has already been noticed in recent years in the test tunnel.
It's also pretty bad since the USA inarguably benefits from non-proliferation much more than either China or Russia. The whole point of nuclear is that it bypasses conventional capabilities, and USA has the best conventional capabilities, so it loses the most in terms of relative power.
I wonder if he got confused between Russia testing a nuclear powered missile and people detonating nuclear warheads. Both could be called nuclear testing. It wouldn't surprise me if there was that sort of mix up.
A House of Dynamite [2]. Everyone is looking to have more dynamite than the other next room, while living inside the house. All of this happening while the world gets more and more divisive. It's insanity. Are 12,000 nukes safer than zero? [1].
Since the Trump admin and the director had an exchange of views through the media recently regarding the movie, I wouldn't be surprised if the timing of the announcement was partially motivated by reality show Trump's TV instincts.
Readit News
There is a huge active conflict in Ukraine, right in Europe, the Middle East and many other places like Africa. Many more conflicts are brewing like in Latin America, China, India/Pakistan etc.
There should be alarm bells going off. People aren't aware of just how massive and devastating this threat is.
In the 1980s there were huge protests about jucelar weapons that actually resulted in detente and a relaxation of tensions.
Right now tensions and conflicts are rising. Many people think the threat of nuclear weapons went away after the cold war. They never did.
Where are the peace movements? There has to be popular pressure to institute arms control, make peace and ultimately dismantle these nuclear weapons.
Other nations are subject to the penalties of the NTBT.
I hope that we all hope that fusion research will displace hazardous waste in energy production.
Peace movements are sponsored by lots of people in lots of nations.
Nixon, for example, worked to smear the pro-Peace antiwar folks as drug user hippies who couldn't figure out free booze at presidential parties who thus deserved to be incarcerated (without conjugal visits, rights over their bodies and their health, library books, or the right to vote) and marginalized.
People voted to cancel saboteurially-wasteful Reagan-Bush cold war star wars bs and invested in free trade and Peace.
The US is the only NATO member state that claims immunity for War Crimes before the ICC International Criminal Court.
The US just bullied other NATO nations into committing to spending 5% of GDP on defense spending by ~~2030~~ 2035 IIRC. Defense ETFs are up since this administration took office in January, and AI datacenter and AI spending are up, but we are now otherwise lacking in economic growth and we've stopped creating new jobs.
All nations suffer the opportunity costs of war; things we could have paid for instead like healthcare, infrastructure, and education will be underfunded due to zero-sum allocation of the proceeds in the coffer to fights that don't net Peaceful returns.
AFAIK, both fusion and fission rely on the same neutron radiation to extract energey from the reaction. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think fusion doesn't produce hazardous waste.
Dead Comment
I'm sure most people now don't even consider a realistic concern, but just more posturing by two authoratative world leaders. In Putin's case, I'd be mostly inclined to agree with that position, considering he's in a stalemate in Ukraine and has basically reached his "wunderwaffe" stage of the war, where he has essentially nothing left to use to fight an entrenched war with and the only way he sees his position to get anything out with through any sort of diplomacy is via fear. Presumably, he knows it's not a tactic that could ever work. Perhaps it's more for his domestic audience than anything else.
[1] Hammer to Fall by Queen https://genius.com/Queen-hammer-to-fall-lyrics
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wunderwaffe?wprov=sfla1
1. People feel "we won the cold war, so the threat of nuclear war is past". I do not think they are entirely wrong (the risk is still much lower) but its complacent to ignore it. I think it is worsened by people clinging to "end of history" theory.
2. Campaigning against nuclear weapons was far easier when the west was winning the cold war and dominated the world economy.
3. People who are worried about existential threats as now focused on climate change. People seem to be able to worry about only one big threat at a time. There are a number of others (space weather is another, pandemics were until we got a rude awakening) that get ignored.
Genuine question.
"A common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any." -- Alice Walker
Really? Yes there were protests, in the west (that sort of thing was generally frowned upon in the Eastern Bloc countries), but they didn't do much.
What I recall happening was that one of the principle parties started to suffer from a worsening economy and could sustainably maintain the spending the cold war demanded. When that party became much more conciliatory, progress on arms control resulted. Didn't end up saving them in the end.
Nuclear testing just means it's game-on. Every other country will need to do testing to match the show of force. This is insanity. None of the doom-sayers were hyperbolic, voting in an idiot is truly dangerous.
Former Apprentice Star Donald Trump wins the US Presidency and re-enables nuclear testing
What the fuck is going on?
Dead Comment
The current peace movement likes nuclear bombs. Which is odd, the old peace movement didnt, but it has been extremely effective difference.
But this distinction has essentially made nobody acknowledge them as a peace movement. Which is crazy, we finally have a peace movement that's successful and they dont get credit.
Dead Comment
A lot of the "peace movements" of the past were financially and ideologically supported by the USSR and Russia [1].
There's nothing bad per se to say against pacifism, to the contrary - but the public image of pacifist movements these days has been heavily tarnished by both the obvious Russia-apologetism regarding the Ukraine war [2] and outright glorification of the horrors done by Hamas on Oct 7th.
[1] https://www.swr.de/swrkultur/wissen/wie-russische-einflussne...
[2] https://www.br.de/nachrichten/bayern/zuviel-verstaendnis-fue...
One of the best benefits of the current no live nuclear testing treaties / environment, was that the United States was one of a few countries that had done extensive live tests early on.
The United States is able to sit on its arsenal and data, and with extensive research and simulation validate to a high degree of accuracy that "hey our bombs still work".
Most countries do not have the data/technical expertise/resources to be able to validate with just simulation. But since no-one else is doing live tests, they do not do live tests either.
How much do you want to bet that a subset of the Russian nuclear weapons simply do not work, and that they will only figure this out when they need to 'test' in response to American tests.
My bet is that it is non-0.
My bet is that most of them are in disrepair. Russia spends around 8 Billion USD on nuclear weapons. France spends around 6 Billion USD on nuclear weapons. Difference is that France has something like 200 warheads, while Russia has something like 5500 warheads.
https://www.icanw.org/nuclear_spending_get_the_facts
Furthermore the fact that using of nuclear weapons has extremely low probability of happening is giving a massive space for corruption. Why maintain what you are not going to use? They managed to siphon money from maintenance of armored equipment, why not ICBMs?
We can get to the staggering reality like Russians have less than 100 working nukes and they themselves may not even know which one are those from those 5500
US spend: 57 billion USD; US GDP: 29,000 billion. US spend on nukes as % of GDP: 0.19%
Russia spend: 8 billion USD; Russia GDP: 2173 billion. Russia spend on nukes as % of GDP: 0.36%
France spend: 6 billion USD; France GDP: 3174 billion. French spend on nukes as % of GDP: 0.18%.
Sadly, the world learned this lesson the hard way from Ukraine’s example: a country that gave up its nuclear arsenal for security guarantees, only to be invaded by the very power that signed them.
For the Russians it would be a mistake to rely on the unreliability or inferiority of their weapons - they historically are very adept at addressing those with sheer numbers.
The US is conducting nuclear tests periodically just like other nuclear powers. Subcritical nuclear testing is allowed. The last one was in 2024 https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/articles/nnsa-completes-subcriti... "NNSA successfully executed a subcritical experiment in the PULSE facility at the Nevada National Security Site. The experiment was executed in partnership with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory."
The US hasn't detonated a nuclear weapon since 1992. You can call the distinction a technicality if you like, but it doesn't seem like one to me.
There is psychological effect, but it's not that important. More important is keeping nuclear test ban in effect. If the US does test, Russia and China will follow.
Deleted Comment
The article you linked says this:
> This experiment performed as predicted; consistent with the self-imposed moratorium on nuclear explosive testing that the United States has held since 1992, it did not form a self-sustaining, supercritical chain reaction.
And yet, in the BBC article, Trump is said to have said:
> President Donald Trump has called on US military leaders to resume testing
Pretty obvious he doesn't mean "resume 2024 testing". He also said this:
> "With others doing testing, I think it's appropriate that we do also,"
Which would conflict with resuming the testing that was done in 2024 (if it ever stopped).
> Trump's announcement did not include details of how the tests would occur
Again, if it was what was happening in 2024, what new details would need to be added?
He has been obsessed with using nuclear weapons since he took office 2016. He even proposed nuking a hurricane.
Others are only testing the delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons (missiles, submarines), not the nuclear weapons themselves. So "Because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis" may also mean that the weapons won't be detonated in these tests.
Who is attention whore and bullshitter. For any other president statements equal policy, that's not so with Trump.
The statement is so vague that it does not indicate out of ordinary nuclear testing. The statement was made in TruthSocial. There is no presidendtial action (proclamation, memorandum, or executive order.) He might be just talking shit.
Dead Comment
[0]: https://youtu.be/JhkZMxgPxXU
Dead Comment
Everything is now. That’s what you get when you build a mind rape device that explicitly rewards attention whoring an other antisocial behavior.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2025/m... ("Golden Dome missile defense system could cost over $1 trillion")
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dome_(missile_defense_s... ("Golden Dome (missile defense system)")
[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/russia-tested-new-nuclea... ("Russia tested new nuclear-powered Burevestnik cruise missile")
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik ("9M730 Burevestnik")
https://abcnews.go.com/International/china-triples-nuclear-a...
Nonetheless, yes, we're still on the brink of something gloomy. The movie is quite good, and would massively gain from spinoffs showing what happens in realtime in other countries too.
Deleted Comment
I thought it was excellent. And I was disappointed with the ending, but I also don't know that any other ending would have been better. The point of the ending to me is that literally no one on earth knows what would happen beyond that point.
Our very civilization is Schrodinger's box that's a few mins away from being opened.
Spoilers ahead, in case you decide to watch this bleak 2 hour waste of time:
"Oooh, nothing works, ooohh, we're going to die". This should've been a 15 minute YouTube video, not a movie.
I found it excellent.
I mean, to be fair, this is the actual situation with nuclear weapons.
There's nothing you can do. You just... die. Everyone. There's no magic bullshit the US can pull out of it's ass to prevent it. One singular nuclear warhead can be enough to eradicate the entire population in the US.
The big question is whether China is confident enough with the data they have from 47 tests.
Any non-subcritical testing is a gift to China as they are severely lagging behind US on number of tests conducted and therefore amount of data collected about warhead design.
Resumption of tests would add fresh data to verify new warhead designs over the decades since the last test. US would have a lesser need for new data given the amount of testing done during the cold war.
If US does conduct a nuclear test I bet a whole slew of test from China would come very shortly after that. Work has already been noticed in recent years in the test tunnel.
https://asia.nikkei.com/static/vdata/infographics/satellite-...
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-sentence/
[1] https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/annie-jacobsen/ [2] https://www.netflix.com/title/81744537