For more than 30 years, the world has avoided slipping back into the dangerous cycle of escalation that defined the Cold War era. After the superpowers realised how close they had come to nuclear catastrophe, they slowly built a system of restraint. Arms-control treaties, verification mechanisms, and a shared understanding of mutual destruction pushed nuclear testing into history. This long period of relative calm makes today’s renewed talk of testing all the more worrying.
Against this backdrop, United States President Donald Trump’s recent directive to Pentagon to explore new nuclear test possibilities appears historically tone-deaf and strategically short-sighted. It overlooks the hard-earned lessons of the Cold War. At the time, both the United States and the erstwhile Soviet Union believed that strength came from building bigger and more destructive weapons. But each new test only provoked another response, pushing both sides closer to the edge. It was a dangerous game where one misstep could have meant annihilation. The world eventually stepped back from the brink, not because of luck, but because leaders finally recognised that nuclear one-upmanship had no winners.
Today’s world is far more complex than the bipolar Cold War order. Instead of two major powers, there is now a multipolar rivalry involving the US, China, Russia and several emerging nuclear states. Reintroducing nuclear tests in such an environment is like lighting a match in a room full of fuel barrels. There are more players, more tensions, and fewer rules. The old arms-control framework — the one that helped stabilise the Cold War — has weakened over the years. Key treaties have collapsed, verification has eroded, and trust among major powers is at its lowest point in decades.
In essence, bringing back a Cold War-era practice now risks replaying the darkest chapters of the 20th century, but this time without the safety nets that once kept competition in check. A single test by one country could trigger a chain reaction, pushing others to respond with tests of their own. Such a spiral would make diplomatic restraint harder, and strategic miscalculations more likely.
Supporters of new testing argue that it strengthens deterrence, but this argument ignores the fact that modern nuclear technology does not require explosive testing to remain credible. Instead, political signalling becomes the real motive — and that is precisely what makes the situation so dangerous. Using nuclear tests as symbols of power invites others to do the same. The world cannot afford to treat nuclear weapons as tools of political theatre. The lessons of history are clear: once the cycle of testing begins, it becomes difficult to stop. What kept the world safe for three decades was not louder threats, but quieter diplomacy and strong global norms. Reviving nuclear testing would not make any nation safer. It would simply drag the world back towards an era of fear — an era we worked so hard to leave behind.
SANAULLAH MIRANI
DAHARKI
