No, he's not getting trolled. It's Trumps consistent "good for the goose, then good for the gander" on matters which in the past have been ok for everyone, except us. Equality across the board, be it tariffs or nuclear explosives testing.

And I'm not a fan of testing, either. However, if our testing (or threatening to) is the only way to get other countries to stop (and this is Trumps ultimate goal) then so be it. That's on them.

The genie is out of the bottle and it can never be put back in. No one is going to give up theirs because it means they are instantly subject to nuclear blackmail by an aggressive nation who has them.

Nuclear weapons are here to stay for as long as humans exist.

Nuclear weapons have kept the peace since 1945 (the last direct war between the great powers) and that is because no one is willing to use them, knowing it means their own annihilation in short order.

Exactly. The only thing to get rid of nukes would be a more powerful weapon.

Does this mean I have to hide under my desk again?


Signed;
BOOMER

Quote:

---

Nuclear weapons have kept the peace since 1945 (the last direct war between the great powers) and that is because no one is willing to use them, knowing it means their own annihilation in short order.

---

Ironically enough, it's probable that Hihoshima/Nagasaki prevented a nuclear holocaust later.

1) Testing nuclear weapons encourages policies in other nations to change and follow suit as they look to assert their own security. The more others test nuclear weapons, the more capabilities they develop.
2) Testing nuclear weapons encourages investment in nuclear weapons technology, thus increasing the number of and further proliferating nuclear devices. More nuclear devices on the planet increases the likelihood of a catastrophic detonation and potentially the end of humanity.
3) Testing nuclear weapons encourages the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology to new nations as other countries see them as vital for their security. The further proliferation of nuclear weapons creates more supply chains for nuclear weapons components. That means more facilities where weapons grade material is produced and more people that are proficient at creating them. More locations and inventories to keep secure also means a higher likelihood this material falls into the wrong hands.
4) Testing nuclear weapons can have significant and lasting environmental impacts. Just because one test is done underground by one nation, does not mean the next test will not be done elsewhere or create a disaster.

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Nuclear weapons have kept the peace since 1945 (the last direct war between the great powers) and that is because no one is willing to use them, knowing it means their own annihilation in short order.

---

Ironically enough, it's probably that Hihoshima/Nagasaki prevented a nuclear holocaust later.

---

Yep, because everyone in the world got to see first hand what those bombs did, and those were crude weapons by even by the early 1950s.

More Good Trump! It's happening every day. It's like a dream after 4 years in the dark brandon wilderness.

As always, the devil is in the details, and no one is sure what testing Trump is talking about.

Just as likely, Trump himself doesn't know what he's talking about.

DETAILS

Quote:

---

instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis.

---

"on an equal basis" is the qualification which seems that people are overlooking. It's all a part of deal making, e.g. "if you're going to do it, then we are". Much overreaction to this subject.

CDUB98 said:

---

Please, no detonations. Radiation is bad for everyone and everything.

---

Actually there is some science out there that is suggestive that some very low level of radiation exposure may be beneficial, but where the boundary is between good and harmful is a total unknown. Underground detonations in the middle of Nevada's butthole are not going to move the needle much for much of anybody.

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis.

---

"on an equal basis" is the qualification which seems that people are overlooking. It's all a part of deal making, e.g. "if you're going to do it, then we are". Much overreaction to this subject.

---

The article I linked just above explains who's doing what. Most likely Trump is conflating testing nuclear delivery systems--which Russia recently announced and which we routinely do--with testing nuclear warheads.

74OA said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis.

---

"on an equal basis" is the qualification which seems that people are overlooking. It's all a part of deal making, e.g. "if you're going to do it, then we are". Much overreaction to this subject.

---

The article I linked just above explains who's doing what. Most likely Trump is conflating testing nuclear delivery systems--which Russia recently announced and which we routinely do--with testing nuclear warheads.

---

No. He is very intentional in what he is saying.

Him announcing this gets all the usual suspects all riled up. Condemning his dictatorial, reckless behavior and calling for him to be deposed for such atrocities.

When the rhetoric reaches the appropriate crescendo, Trump will point out the other nations who test their nuclear capabilities (which he wants to curtail) and now he's achieved his objective.

It amazes me people continue to underestimate Trump. He is an exceptionally intelligent, detail oriented businessman, dealmaker, savior of the United States.

More Nukes.
Less Kooks!

Teslag said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

V8Aggie said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Please, no detonations. Radiation is bad for everyone and everything.

---

That's not how that works. Fallout from modern weapons is relatively small and almost nonexistent if detonated via air burst. They can design the test to be low to no risk.

---

Please show your work.

---

Modern weapons testing is done underground. I could run the calcs for gamma emission and absorption in hundreds of feet of strata but it seems unnecessary.

---

Well, if this particular poster thinks is Safe, Effective, and probably also Free…

Well let's just say you don't exactly have lots of trust left at this point. So yeah show your calcs. It's 100% necessary.

aggiebq03+ said:

---

Teslag said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

V8Aggie said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Please, no detonations. Radiation is bad for everyone and everything.

---

That's not how that works. Fallout from modern weapons is relatively small and almost nonexistent if detonated via air burst. They can design the test to be low to no risk.

---

Please show your work.

---

Modern weapons testing is done underground. I could run the calcs for gamma emission and absorption in hundreds of feet of strata but it seems unnecessary.

---

Well, if this particular poster thinks is Safe, Effective, and probably also Free…

Well let's just say you don't exactly have lots of trust left at this point. So yeah show your calcs. It's 100% necessary.

---

So you think gamma rays passing through more than one thousand feet of strata can irradiate the surface? Or that fallout can somehow magically defy gravity and density and do the same?

Because vaccines?

I've seen enough Godzilla movies to be generally against nuclear bomb testing on Earth. Do it in outer space and take pictures.

flown-the-coop said:

---

I've seen enough Godzilla movies to be generally against nuclear bomb testing on Earth. Do it in outer space and take pictures.

---

Someone didn't see Superman IV

Teslag said:

---

aggiebq03+ said:

---

Teslag said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

V8Aggie said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Please, no detonations. Radiation is bad for everyone and everything.

---

That's not how that works. Fallout from modern weapons is relatively small and almost nonexistent if detonated via air burst. They can design the test to be low to no risk.

---

Please show your work.

---

Modern weapons testing is done underground. I could run the calcs for gamma emission and absorption in hundreds of feet of strata but it seems unnecessary.

---

Well, if this particular poster thinks is Safe, Effective, and probably also Free…

Well let's just say you don't exactly have lots of trust left at this point. So yeah show your calcs. It's 100% necessary.

---

So you think gamma rays passing through more than one thousand feet of strata can irradiate the surface? Or that fallout can somehow magically defy gravity and density and do the same?

Because vaccines?

---

It's okay, no one believed you when you said you could run the calcs. It's also okay to admit you were not truthful. Especially when no one believed you could do any calculations related to gamma radiation to begin with. But liars gonna lie I suppose. Just change your name again…

aggiebq03+ said:

---

Teslag said:

---

aggiebq03+ said:

---

Teslag said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

V8Aggie said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Please, no detonations. Radiation is bad for everyone and everything.

---

That's not how that works. Fallout from modern weapons is relatively small and almost nonexistent if detonated via air burst. They can design the test to be low to no risk.

---

Please show your work.

---

Modern weapons testing is done underground. I could run the calcs for gamma emission and absorption in hundreds of feet of strata but it seems unnecessary.

---

Well, if this particular poster thinks is Safe, Effective, and probably also Free…

Well let's just say you don't exactly have lots of trust left at this point. So yeah show your calcs. It's 100% necessary.

---

So you think gamma rays passing through more than one thousand feet of strata can irradiate the surface? Or that fallout can somehow magically defy gravity and density and do the same?

Because vaccines?

---

It's okay, no one believed you when you said you could run the calcs. It's also okay to admit you were not truthful. Especially when no one believed you could do any calculations related to gamma radiation to begin with. But liars gonna lie I suppose. Just change your name again…

---

Actually since most people on this board had high school physics they know that high energy gamma rays are reduced by half in about 9 inches of soil. Now again, do you think gamma rays from a nuclear blast 1,000 feet below are going to irradiate the surface? (please say yes)

And just as a reminder gamma irradiation doesn't create radioactivity in the materials it passes through. Only neutrons can do that.

Gamma irradiation creates Hulks.

Yep, you have to do something that either split an atomic nucleus into smaller radioactive isotopes or changes the number of neutrons in an existing atom creating a more radioactive isotope. Then whatever quantity of those created starts emitting neutrons at its naturally occurring decay rate, generally speaking.

It is prudent to maintain weapons capability parity with opponents threatening to make your weapons obsolete in the nuclear exchange context. Except for SLBM, the American inventory is getting fairly aged.

cecil77 said:

---

And just as a reminder gamma irradiation doesn't create radioactivity in the materials it passes through. Only neutrons can do that.

---

You probably have more expertise in this area than anyone on this board. What are your thoughts on additional testing? Is it necessary or can we reliably simulate it?

"Education" as opposed to "expertise". I wasn't in the industry very long, and it was a long time ago.

This whole thing is "much ado". It's Trump being Trump, and 9/10 that accomplishes his purpose. He's got their attention, and is reminding the world that the 900lb gorilla can pretty much do what it wants, so don't poke it.

You don't just go and explode a thermonuclear device for chits and giggles. Very complex, very expensive, and mostly unneeded.

My "mostly uniformed" opinion is that modern numerical analysis, much less AI can simulate almost everything rendering actual detonation not needed, but unnecessarily provocative and hugely expensive.

And I'm pretty sure there are practicing nuclear engineers that post.

Energy secretary reveals how US nuclear tests will work

Quote:

---

Testing will instead involve "the other parts of a nuclear weapon," Wright told Fox News' "The Sunday Briefing."
"I think the tests we're talking about right now are systems tests," he explained. "These are not nuclear explosions. These are what we call noncritical explosions."

---

cecil77 said:

---

"Education" as opposed to "expertise". I wasn't in the industry very long, and it was a long time ago.

This whole thing is "much ado". It's Trump being Trump, and 9/10 that accomplishes his purpose. He's got their attention, and is reminding the world that the 900lb gorilla can pretty much do what it wants, so don't poke it.

You don't just go and explode a thermonuclear device for chits and giggles. Very complex, very expensive, and mostly unneeded.

My "mostly uniformed" opinion is that modern numerical analysis, much less AI can simulate almost everything rendering actual detonation not needed, but unnecessarily provocative and hugely expensive.

And I'm pretty sure there are practicing nuclear WEAPONS engineers that post.

---

I want the guys who design the bombs to chime in.

Of course, I wasted braincells watching A House of Dynamite on Netflix.

On another related note, I am surprised we have not yet seen even a tactical EMP device deployed either by official or unofficial actors.

You could argue it creates a worse "fall out" in the aftermath than a big fireball nuke.

Can we verify we've routed out all the DEI hires from the program before the testing begins?

flown-the-coop said:

---

74OA said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis.

---

"on an equal basis" is the qualification which seems that people are overlooking. It's all a part of deal making, e.g. "if you're going to do it, then we are". Much overreaction to this subject.

---

The article I linked just above explains who's doing what. Most likely Trump is conflating testing nuclear delivery systems--which Russia recently announced and which we routinely do--with testing nuclear warheads.

---

No. He is very intentional in what he is saying.

Him announcing this gets all the usual suspects all riled up. Condemning his dictatorial, reckless behavior and calling for him to be deposed for such atrocities.

When the rhetoric reaches the appropriate crescendo, Trump will point out the other nations who test their nuclear capabilities (which he wants to curtail) and now he's achieved his objective.

---

As I suggested: "New tests of the U.S. nuclear weapons system ordered up by President Donald Trump will not include nuclear explosions, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said Sunday.

"I think the tests we're talking about right now are system tests," Wright said in an interview on Fox News' "Sunday Briefing." "These are not nuclear explosions."

In other words, the same routine system testing we and other nations have been doing for decades. Nothing to curtail unless we intend to also curtail ourselves.

CLARITY

74OA said:

---

As I suggested: "New tests of the U.S. nuclear weapons system ordered up by President Donald Trump will not include nuclear explosions, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said Sunday.

"I think the tests we're talking about right now are system tests," Wright said in an interview on Fox News' "Sunday Briefing." "These are not nuclear explosions."

In other words, the same routine system testing we and other nations have been doing for decades. Nothing to curtail unless we intend to also curtail ourselves.

CLARITY

---

The Energy Secretary who may not have discussed with Trump (yet) what Trump meant, is clearly not committal to the "clarity" you seem certain of - I happened to watch the Sunday Briefing and Wright's non verbal cues were also not convincing as to what Trump intended by his remarks.

I have no idea what is at the link you provided. I do not click on links that hide their source through editing of how the hyperlink appears.

Uh, huh. Military.com. Very reputable.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/11/03/trumps-testing-plans-us-nuclear-weapons-wont-include-explosions-energy-secretary-says.html