Nuclear Testing Boundaries and New Challenges to Global Strategic Stability: From the Burevestnik Test Launch to the US's Proposed Resumption of Nuclear Testing

In late October 2025, a series of developments surrounding nuclear weapons development drew significant international attention. Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the successful test launch of the nuclear-powered cruise missile Burevestnik and the completion of the Poseidon unmanned underwater vehicle test. Former US President Donald Trump subsequently declared his intention to initiate a "reciprocal" nuclear testing program. The interactions and statements between Russia and the US highlight the deep-seated risks of blurred boundaries in nuclear rules and compromised strategic stability.

I. Event Context: From Russian Weapon Tests to US Statements

On October 26, 2025, Putin announced the successful test launch of the Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile. This weapon system, first revealed in 2018, is characterized by its theoretically unlimited range, capable of penetrating existing missile defense systems. Three days later, Putin further announced the completion of testing for the Poseidon unmanned underwater vehicle, explicitly stating that the equipment is equipped with a nuclear power plant and capable of carrying nuclear warheads for intercontinental underwater strikes.

In response to these tests, Trump declared that the United States would "immediately begin" a nuclear weapons testing program "on par" with other nuclear-armed states. Although he did not specify the exact timing or format of the tests, this statement directly targeted the nuclear testing program that the United States had effectively suspended since 1992.

II. Russia's Position: Distinguishing Between Weapons Tests and Nuclear Tests

Russian Presidential Spokesperson Peskov systematically explained Russia's position at a briefing on October 30. First, he clearly defined the nature of the "Poseidon" and "Seagull" tests: "They absolutely do not fall under the category of nuclear tests." He emphasized, "We hope the US side can accurately understand the relevant information. This means that this test should not be interpreted as a nuclear test under any circumstances."

Secondly, Peskov positioned Russia's actions as an exercise of its defensive rights: "All countries have the right to develop their own defense systems, but this is fundamentally different from a nuclear test." Regarding Trump's statement, he cited the international situation, saying, "As of now, we have not received any information about any country conducting a nuclear test." At the same time, he reiterated Putin's warning: "If any country violates its commitment to suspend nuclear testing, Russia will take countermeasures according to the specific circumstances."

It is noteworthy that Peskov denied that Russia and the US were engaged in a new arms race: "This is not the case at this stage." This statement is consistent with Russia's position that its actions are normal defense development.

III. Technical Definitions and Legal Ambiguities

The core of the Russia-US dispute lies in the definition of "nuclear test." According to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), a nuclear test refers to any nuclear explosion conducted to test the effectiveness of a nuclear explosive device. Russia maintains that the "Burevestnik" and "Poseidon" tests only involved the non-explosive application of nuclear-powered devices, falling under the category of weapons platform testing, not nuclear explosion tests.

However, nuclear-powered weapons testing still carries potential risks: nuclear-powered cruise missiles flying through the atmosphere could cause the spread of radioactive materials, and malfunctions in unmanned underwater vehicles could lead to marine nuclear contamination. While such tests do not violate the CTBT (because the US has not ratified the treaty), they challenge the foundation of mutual trust upon which the "nuclear test moratorium" established by the international community after 1996 is based.

IV. US Motives and Strategic Logic

Trump's announcement of resuming nuclear testing may be based on multiple strategic considerations:

1. Technological Upgrading Needs: The aging of the US nuclear arsenal is a significant problem, and it is questionable whether existing simulation testing technology can completely replace real nuclear explosion verification. Supporters believe that resuming testing can ensure the reliability of nuclear warheads, especially for new tactical nuclear weapons.

2. Deterrence Signal: By demonstrating the authenticity of nuclear deterrence, pressure can be exerted on countries like Russia and China, forcing them to accept broader arms control provisions. At the same time, it strengthens the commitment to "extended deterrence" to allies.

3. Domestic Political Narrative: A hardline nuclear policy helps cultivate an image of a "strongman leader" and garner support from conservative voters.

V. Global Reactions and Stability Impact

1. Escalating International Concerns: The United Nations and the Nuclear Test Ban Organization (CTBTO) may reaffirm their commitment to the CTBT principles and call for restraint from all parties. European allies such as France and Germany may explicitly oppose any resumption of nuclear testing, fearing a chain reaction.

2. Pressure on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation System: If the US and Russia successively break the precedent of testing moratoriums, nuclear-armed states such as India and Pakistan may follow suit, and nuclear threshold states such as North Korea will gain an excuse to develop nuclear weapons. Although the CTBT has not yet come into effect, the normative binding force it represents will be severely damaged.

3. Weakening Strategic Trust Among Major Powers: The narrative of mutual accusations between Russia and the US of "destabilizing" each other has exacerbated strategic suspicion. Peskov's emphasis on the principle of "reciprocal response" indicates an increased risk of both sides falling into an "action-response" cycle.

4. Dim Prospects for Arms Control Mechanisms: The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) will expire in 2026, and renewal negotiations are already difficult. The nuclear test controversy may completely close the window for dialogue, plunging the world into a period without nuclear arms control treaty constraints.

VI. Future Trends and Key Variables

1. Certainty of US Policy: Whether Trump's statements will translate into actual policy depends on the 2024 election results and subsequent administrative decision-making processes. If the Democrats govern, the suspension of testing may continue.

2. Scale of Russian Retaliation: Peskov has left room for flexibility in "taking countermeasures according to specific circumstances," and the intensity of Russia's reaction will depend on the specific form of US action.

3. Role of Third Parties: Whether China, the EU, and others can play a mediating role and promote diplomatic dialogue on the crisis will be key to preventing escalation.

4. Technological Risk Management: Safety standards and transparency mechanisms for nuclear-powered weapons testing urgently need international consultation to prevent misjudgments caused by technical accidents.

Conclusion

From the "Burevestnik" test launch to the US's proposed resumption of nuclear testing, the current controversy reflects the instability of the nuclear order in the post-Cold War era. Russia insists that its tests "do not fall within the scope of nuclear testing," while the US responds with "reciprocal" actions. The game between the two sides on the boundaries of rules has exacerbated strategic uncertainty. Against the backdrop of collapsing arms control systems and intensified great power competition, any unilateral action could trigger a chain reaction, further eroding the foundation of global strategic stability. The core challenge facing the international community lies in how to rebuild dialogue mechanisms, clarify behavioral boundaries, and prevent irreversible consequences from miscalculations in the nuclear field, given the emergence of new weapons technologies.