The U.S. and Russia are reviving Cold War tensions with new nuclear tests and weapons
 |
| Grayscale photo of an explosion on the beach, photo by Pixabay |
A new nuclear arms race might sound like a Cold War relic, but in the past year, these tensions have dominated daily headlines.
In late October 2025, Russia conducted a high-profile test of its Poseidon nuclear-powered underwater drone, while U.S. officials debated resuming nuclear testing for the first time since the 1990s. (Read More)
These developments are not isolated. They occur amid weakened arms control treaties, the emergence of weapons that blur the line between conventional and nuclear, and policy decisions with long-term global security implications.
Summary of Recent Events in Plain Terms
In October 2025, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia had successfully tested Poseidon, an underwater nuclear-powered drone that Moscow claims can travel long ranges and is difficult to intercept.
At the same time, Russian officials continued to highlight tests of other missiles, such as the Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile.
These tests demonstrate Russia’s growing capabilities and serve to deter its adversaries by providing new ways to strike strategic targets. (Read More)
Meanwhile, in Washington, the debate focused on senior U.S. officials and the White House discussing whether they should resume explosive nuclear testing, a practice stopped since 1992.
The White House push reinvigorated discussion about whether existing U.S. confidence in its arsenal, based on modeling rather than live tests, is sufficient. (Read More)
Why This Looks Like an Arms Race, and Why This Label Is Useful
An arms race generally has two key dynamics. First, competitors develop new capabilities to maintain or gain an advantage. Second, these investments prompt the other side to respond, often by building more or different systems.
Russia's recent test and increased U.S. discussion suggest that testing fits this pattern.
Independent observers such as SIPRI are concerned that the world is entering a dangerous new cycle of nuclear competition driven by technical innovation and broken arms control frameworks. (Read More)
Calling this an arms race helps focus policy. Arms races are expensive and unstable. They raise the risk of human casualties and overreaction. They also erode norms such as test ban agreements and the clear distinction between conventional and nuclear roles.
If policymakers accept the arms race frame, they see incentives to slow or manage competition rather than accelerate it.
What Makes Poseidon and Burevestnik Tests Different
Two major features matter in these tests compared to older weapons. First, both systems mix novel delivery methods and propulsion technologies.
Poseidon is nuclear-powered, granting it exceptional underwater endurance and range, while Burevestnik, a nuclear-powered cruise missile, can travel long distances. Both weapons prioritize survivability and unpredictability over accuracy, complicating interception efforts. (Read More)
.webp) |
| Green battle tank photo by Andy Cat on Unsplash |
Second, these weapons blur escalation lines. Slow movement and unconventional delivery methods create ambiguity about intent and function. If the system is not quickly identified as conventional or nuclear, military personnel may face compressed timelines and pressure to assume a worst-case scenario, raising the margin of error during crises.
The U.S. Position and Limitations on Restarting Tests
Politically, the United States faces a dilemma. Live testing could reassure allies and citizens that the arsenal is credible against novel threats, but testing also carries costs.
The Nevada test site and its infrastructure have been inactive since the last full-scale tests, and rebuilding them would be expensive and politically contentious.
Experts argue that the United States does not have a technical need to resume testing; modern computational modeling and subcritical experiments provide confidence in warhead safety and performance.
That debate matters because any decision would have a chain reaction on diplomacy and proliferation. (Read More)
A return to explosive testing would violate the spirit of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty even if the U.S. is not a party. It would also likely raise international concerns and could accelerate nuclear programs in other states like Iran.
Real-World Examples of Destabilization
History offers worrying examples. During the early Cold War, ambiguous incidents and misread signals nearly led to a nuclear exchange.
The 1998 Indian and Pakistani tests produced a regional surge in nuclear rhetoric and deployments that lasted decades. The modern twist is speed and automation.
If a new weapons class cannot be reliably monitored, a tactical emergency might be perceived as a strategic attack and provoke an outsized response. That is the central destabilizing logic behind new systems like Poseidon. (Read More)
What Policymakers Can and Should Do Now
Increase Dialogue and Rebuild Verification
Even during high tensions, hotlines and technical working groups that share test data, telemetry, and launch notifications reduce misperception.
Rebuilding verification is cheaper and faster than reconstructing test infrastructure, so think tanks and policy centers call for renewed diplomatic engagement on arms control while modernizing verification tools. (Read More)
Pursue Multilateral Restraint
If Russia and the United States can agree to limit systems, even informally, the world would be safer. SIPRI and CSIS emphasize that a mix of unilateral restraint and multilateral confidence-building is the most practical path.
Strengthening export controls and norms around dual-use technologies, investing in resilience rather than hair-trigger options, clarifying doctrine, and reducing ambiguity are other realistic steps to address the problem. (Read More)
What Ordinary People Should Watch For
If you follow headlines, watch for these signals rather than expert shorthand. First, official announcements of new tests, like Poseidon on October 29, 2025.
Second, policy moves that quickly change a country's field or validate nuclear weapons, such as new budgets for testing or large procurement programs.
Third, the health of arms control treaties and high-level meetings between capitals; these indicators matter more than sensational claims about doomsday weapons.
Final Thoughts
Yes, the world is experiencing new pressures that resemble an arms race. The combination of novel weapons, fraying treaties, and public calls to reintroduce practices like live testing makes the risk of escalation real.
Practical, politically viable steps exist that can reduce risks without pretending the problem will disappear. Diplomatic engagement, transparency, and prudent doctrine are the most effective levers we have.
Absent these levers, the competition will likely intensify and become more expensive and dangerous for everyone. (Read More)