By Newswriters News Desk
A new and dangerous phase of nuclear competition appears to be unfolding. U.S. President Donald Trump has announced plans to restart nuclear testing after more than three decades of restraint, while Russian President Vladimir Putin has unveiled an underwater nuclear drone capable of unleashing a radioactive “tsunami.” Together, these moves have reignited fears of a new nuclear arms race.
The Cold War’s arms control architecture — from the INF Treaty to New START — is collapsing, and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty stands on shaky ground. What once maintained global stability is now being replaced by power signaling and technological one-upmanship.
Putin’s so-called “Poseidon” weapon symbolizes a shift toward psychological and environmental terror, while Washington’s resumption of testing signals a willingness to discard long-held taboos. Adding to the volatility, both China and Pakistan are expanding or reaffirming their nuclear capabilities.
Pakistan’s Army Chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, recently warned that his country would “take one-third of the world with it” if its existence were threatened — rhetoric that echoes the most dangerous moments of the Cold War.With treaties fading, technology advancing, and global politics fracturing, the world seems headed into an era where nuclear restraint is no longer guaranteed — and where one mistake could be enough to change history
The nuclear shadow that haunted the Cold War never fully disappeared — it only dimmed. Now, with U.S. President Donald Trump announcing plans to restart nuclear testing after a decades-long moratorium and Russian President Vladimir Putin unveiling a “tsunami-generating” nuclear weapon, that shadow is darkening once again. These parallel moves suggest that the world’s two largest nuclear powers are edging toward a new era of nuclear confrontation, one that could prove more unpredictable and destabilizing than any before.
The End of Restraint
Since the 1990s, global efforts to constrain nuclear weapons have rested on two fragile pillars: the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and bilateral arms reduction agreements like the START and INF treaties. Although the CTBT, adopted in 1996, was never ratified by the U.S. or China, it succeeded in establishing a de facto global ban on nuclear testing. For nearly three decades, no major power conducted an explosive test — a rare moment of restraint in a world otherwise defined by arms modernization.
That restraint is now under threat. President Trump’s declaration that the United States will “resume limited underground nuclear testing to ensure deterrence reliability” breaks a longstanding international taboo. While American officials claim the move is purely technical, many arms control experts see it as a symbolic escalation — a signal to both Russia and China that Washington will no longer be bound by old limitations.
Moscow, for its part, has been signaling its own ambitions. In a chilling announcement, President Putin boasted that Russia has developed an underwater nuclear drone, Poseidon, capable of creating “radioactive tsunamis” that could inundate coastal cities. The system — which can carry a nuclear warhead many times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb — is designed to bypass missile defenses and strike at the enemy’s very survival. It represents a new dimension of deterrence: psychological terror through environmental catastrophe.
Erosion of Arms Control
The latest developments are not isolated events but part of a longer unraveling of the arms control architecture painstakingly built over half a century. The U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty in 2019 ended restrictions on intermediate-range missiles. The New START Treaty, the last remaining limit on U.S. and Russian strategic arsenals, is set to expire in the coming years without clear prospects of renewal. China, meanwhile, is expanding its nuclear arsenal at a pace unseen since the 1960s.
This breakdown of agreements has led to a dangerous strategic free-for-all, where verification, trust, and predictability — the foundations of nuclear stability — are vanishing. Analysts warn that a world without arms control will not necessarily see open war, but it will live in constant tension, accidents, and miscalculations.
As Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association notes, “The reintroduction of nuclear testing would be a catastrophic step backward. It risks triggering reciprocal tests by Russia, China, and possibly even regional powers like India or Pakistan.”
New Technologies, New Dangers
Unlike the Cold War, today’s nuclear competition is unfolding in a multi-domain and multipolar world. The U.S. and Russia are no longer the sole actors; China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel are all significant players in the nuclear equation. Meanwhile, new technologies — hypersonic missiles, AI-driven command systems, cyber warfare, and space-based weapons — have blurred the lines between conventional and nuclear deterrence.
Putin’s Poseidon underwater drone is emblematic of this shift. By combining autonomous systems with nuclear payloads, such weapons complicate traditional doctrines of deterrence. They are not only hard to track and intercept but also designed to inflict disproportionate and indiscriminate damage. Similarly, the U.S. is testing hypersonic glide vehicles capable of delivering nuclear or conventional warheads at speeds exceeding Mach 5 — weapons that compress decision times and increase the risk of mistaken retaliation.
The AI dimension adds another layer of danger. As nuclear command and control systems become more automated, the possibility of machine error or hacking introduces unprecedented vulnerabilities. A false alarm, algorithmic bias, or cyber intrusion could have catastrophic consequences.
China’s Calculated Rise
China, though not directly involved in the Trump–Putin theatrics, looms large in this new nuclear equation. Beijing has long maintained a policy of “minimum deterrence,” but recent satellite data suggests it is rapidly expanding its nuclear silos in western deserts. U.S. intelligence estimates that China could double its nuclear warheads within the decade. If the U.S. resumes testing, Beijing may accelerate its own program under the pretext of parity.
Unlike the Cold War’s bipolar rivalry, the 21st-century arms race could thus become triangular — involving the U.S., Russia, and China, each wary of the others’ technological leaps.
A Dangerous Rhetoric
Adding fuel to this volatile mix is the rhetoric from political and military leaders. Pakistani Army Chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, recently warned that if Pakistan’s existence were ever threatened, it would “take one-third of the world with it” — a chilling echo of nuclear brinkmanship in South Asia. Trump, meanwhile, has reportedly expressed “love” for Munir. Such language, critics say, normalizes nuclear threats as tools of political theatre rather than existential deterrents.
Global Fallout
The implications of renewed nuclear competition extend beyond security. Testing alone would have environmental and humanitarian costs — from radioactive contamination to displacement of local populations. Moreover, the return to nuclear signaling would likely undermine global non-proliferation norms, emboldening countries like North Korea or Iran to pursue their own weapons programs.
All this comes at a time when the world faces shared crises — climate change, pandemics, and economic instability — that demand cooperation rather than confrontation. Yet the nuclear discourse has once again turned toward fear, secrecy, and power projection.
Echoes of the Cold War, But More Complex
The parallels with the 1950s and 1960s are unmistakable: rival superpowers flexing nuclear muscles, public anxiety rising, and international institutions struggling to keep pace. But today’s situation is more complex. Unlike the bipolar clarity of the Cold War, the current order is fragmented, digitally interconnected, and ideologically confused. There are more actors, more technologies, and fewer rules.
The danger lies not only in deliberate conflict but in miscalculation. With multiple states operating on hair-trigger alerts and cyber systems mediating key decisions, the world may be closer to an accidental nuclear exchange than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
A Fateful Choice
The question, then, is not whether a new arms race has begun — it arguably already has — but whether humanity can still find the will to stop it. Reviving dialogue, reestablishing verification mechanisms, and reaffirming the CTBT could be first steps. But that would require political courage and international trust, both in short supply today.
As the United States digs new tunnels for testing and Russia parades apocalyptic weapons, the world stands at a crossroads. The nuclear age began with a blinding flash in 1945; whether it ends in another may depend on the choices made in the coming years.
