By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following reports of Russian nuclear breakthroughs, the Kremlin reversed course, asserting that tests of the Burevestnik cruise missile and Poseidon underwater drone were not nuclear. This shift came after President Trump announced the US would resume nuclear weapons testing, prompting the Kremlin to clarify its position and emphasize adherence to the global testing moratorium. The Russian spokesperson stated that the tests did not involve nuclear detonations and that Moscow would only reconsider its stance if another country abandoned the moratorium. The Kremlin also downplayed the prospect of a new arms race with the United States.
Read the original article here
After all the Hype, Kremlin Admits Putin’s Nuclear Tests Weren’t Nuclear at All, and frankly, that’s not surprising. Let’s be honest, the idea of a nuclear test in the current global climate wouldn’t exactly be a welcome development. If these tests *had* been actual nuclear detonations, we’d be talking about something that could be classified as a crime against humanity. The news itself, however, has been slightly misleading. Russia wasn’t necessarily claiming to have *detonated* a nuclear warhead in these tests. The focus was on the testing of a nuclear-powered missile, which, in and of itself, is a significant technological feat, boasting a range of around 14,000 kilometers and the capacity to carry a nuclear payload. However, the key distinction is that there was no actual nuclear *explosion* during these tests.
It’s tempting to see this as a sign of desperation from Russia, particularly considering the ongoing conventional arms race with NATO that they can barely afford. Adding a new, potentially expensive, nuclear arms race on top of that seems like a move that could ultimately backfire. With the current state of affairs, one could be forgiven for thinking that Russia might be headed down a self-destructive path, perhaps even mirroring North Korea’s approach. Considering that Russia’s institutions are often compared to shiny Faberge eggs – impressive on the outside but potentially hollow within – the idea of truly functional, modern nuclear capabilities can be called into question.
The world stage is, at times, run by a bunch of individuals, and it seems this is one of those times. It does seem to play to the tune of the former president, who seems easily swayed. As the saying goes, “Of course they weren’t” – at least, not in the way some people might have feared. The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) has been in effect since 1996, although both the US and Russia have signed but not ratified it. This agreement effectively bans nuclear weapons testing, with the exception of those conducted underground.
The last nuclear tests conducted by major world powers were in the 1990s, with the notable exception of North Korea. Given the CTBT, it’s almost impossible to imagine any responsible nation blatantly ignoring it and conducting overt nuclear tests. Russia, as a signatory to the treaty (though not fully ratifying), would face severe international repercussions for violating it. It is important to note that Russia has conducted nuclear drills and tested a nuclear-powered cruise missile and a nuclear-powered torpedo. No warhead testing was reported to have taken place.
So, when headlines screamed about “nuclear tests,” it’s understandable that people might have raised an eyebrow. The expectation was that the tests were primarily of the missile’s mechanics, not the detonation of an actual nuclear warhead. Some were probably more concerned with the maintenance of those warheads and whether or not they were well maintained. As it turns out, the “hype” surrounding the situation was perhaps a bit overblown. It’s unlikely that anyone except maybe a few dictators were truly “hyped” by the prospect of Russia’s nuclear tests.
It’s easy to get caught up in media clickbait and alarmist headlines, but in this case, the reality seems to be less dramatic. Perhaps the biggest question is whether the whole thing was simply theater for domestic consumption. If Russia *had* openly tested a nuclear weapon, the international consequences would have been truly staggering. The idea of intentionally spreading radiation into the atmosphere is a crime against humanity as a whole, it really is.
The nature of the missile, the potential for radioactive exhaust, and the implications for environmental safety are important considerations. Even a nuclear-powered missile has the potential to release radioactive materials if it malfunctions, and the pollution concerns around this are valid. Russia already possesses a substantial arsenal of intercontinental missiles, both land-based and submarine-launched, so the primary motivation behind the testing, other than maybe a news sensationalism angle, is unclear.
The core of the issue, as some have pointed out, might be the lack of a distinction between a nuclear-powered engine, with its associated risks, and the detonation of an actual nuclear weapon. The focus on propulsion systems, and whether there are safety risks for the local population, is understandable. With the potential for contamination of the atmosphere, any irresponsible use of such technology would, by definition, be considered a crime against humanity. The fact that many of the original people who knew how to run these tests may be retired or dead, is also a consideration.
The fact remains that the testing of any weapon with the potential to inflict widespread devastation, whether nuclear-powered or carrying a nuclear warhead, raises serious questions. It is important to know whether Russia intended on testing an open core or closed core system. Given the current global situation and the potential for misinterpretation or escalation, a clear and accurate understanding of the events is crucial. However, the core of the issue, as some have pointed out, might be the lack of a distinction between a nuclear-powered engine, with its associated risks, and the detonation of an actual nuclear weapon.