Opinion
The
Editorial Board
Trump
Risks Igniting a Nuclear Wildfire
Feb. 16,
2026
By The
Editorial Board
The
editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by
expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate
from the newsroom.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/16/opinion/trump-nuclear-treaty-expired.html
The world
is entering a dangerous new nuclear age. This month, the New START treaty
between the United States and Russia — the last major restraint on the world’s
two largest nuclear arsenals — expired. In its place, the Trump administration
is substituting a policy of vague threats and dangerous brinkmanship that
portends an unconstrained arms race not seen since the height of the Cold War.
President
Trump’s approach to this new, unbound era is alarming in both its words and its
mechanics. Rather than preserving the stability that has held for half a
century, the administration is weighing the deployment of more nuclear weapons
and, perhaps most recklessly, the resumption of underground nuclear testing.
Times
Opinion and this editorial board have spent the past two years documenting the
terrifying reality of these weapons in our series “At the Brink.” We explored
the catastrophic consequences of a single detonation, the forgotten victims of
past testing and the fragility of the systems meant to prevent the unthinkable.
The intention of that series was to raise public awareness about the dangers of
nuclear weapons. Now that lack of awareness is being exploited to abandon the
last of the international agreements that helped keep humanity safe for decades
and to pursue an unchecked arms race.
The
administration seems to think that when it comes to nuclear weapons, more is
better. With New START gone, the Navy is studying whether to reopen disabled
launch tubes on Ohio-class submarines and load additional warheads on its
intercontinental ballistic missiles. The moves could more than double today’s
deployed arsenal. Officials have also floated the idea of a “Trump class”
warship armed with nuclear-capable cruise missiles.
The logic
provided by the State Department is that the old treaty placed “unacceptable”
constraints on the United States and failed to account for China’s growing
arsenal. Although it is true that China is expanding its nuclear forces,
ripping up existing guardrails with Russia in hopes of coercing Beijing into a
deal is a strategy that has already failed. China has repeatedly made clear
that it has no interest in negotiations while its arsenal is a fraction of the
size of America’s. By abandoning limits, Mr. Trump is not forcing his rivals to
the table; he is inviting them to sprint alongside him.
His
disdain for American allies has also encouraged them to consider expanding
their own nuclear promises. European leaders have begun to discuss whether
France, which has nuclear weapons, should vow to protect other parts of Western
Europe from Russia, given the sudden unreliability of the United States. “As
long as bad powers have nuclear weapons,” Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson of
Sweden told The Atlantic, “democracies also need to be able to play.” A larger
nuclear umbrella for any country increases the chances that a misunderstanding
or mistake will lead to devastation.
Especially
disturbing is the administration’s signal that it may resume underground
nuclear testing. Thomas G. DiNanno, a senior State Department official,
recently said in Geneva that the United States must “restore responsible
behavior” regarding testing. He was arguing that Russia and China have already
been cheating on the testing moratorium — a claim for which public evidence
remains scarce and disputed. Mr. Trump has previously stated that he wants to
resume detonations “on an equal basis” with our adversaries.
We must
be clear about what this means: The United States has not conducted an
explosive nuclear test since 1992. To do so now would be strategic malpractice.
As we noted in “At the Brink,” the United States has conducted more than 1,000
nuclear tests — about as many as all other nations combined. We possess a trove
of data that allows us to maintain our arsenal through computer modeling
without detonating a single charge. The technological gains from new tests are
negligible compared with the geopolitical damage. It would shatter a global
norm and almost certainly trigger reciprocal tests by Russia and China,
allowing those countries to improve their own warheads.
Furthermore,
the human cost of the testing era cannot be ignored. Our series documented the
scars left on the people of the Marshall Islands and those in the American West
who suffered from cancer and displacement from the radioactive fallout of the
20th century. To reopen the door to explosive testing is to invite a return
This
administration has options to reverse course. First, Mr. Trump should refrain
from ordering a resumption of explosive nuclear testing.
Second,
the United States should commit to an informal one-year mutual adherence to New
START limits with Russia, even in the absence of a treaty. President Vladimir
Putin offered such an extension previously; Mr. Trump should test that offer
rather than dismiss it. This would buy time for the better agreement that Mr.
Trump claims to want, without unleashing a free-for-all in the interim.
Third,
the administration must stop using the potential threat of China as an excuse
to start an arms race with Russia. Today, the United States and Russia each
have roughly a six-to-one warhead advantage over China — and arsenals that are
more than capable of destroying any nation on earth many times over. The notion
that New START is a disadvantage to the United States is wrong.
Finally,
Congress must reassert its role. The president of the United States currently
possesses the sole, unchecked authority to launch a nuclear war. In an era of
rising tension and decaying treaties, leaving the fate of the world to the
judgment of a single person — whoever it is — is a risk no democracy should
tolerate.


Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário