My short take on the nuclear testing trial balloon. Hopefully this will be balanced and nuanced enough to keep me out trouble with the "you expressed an opinion!" police. So far we know there was a meeting, with some strong support and some push back. (1)

We can guess, but don't know for sure who took which position. Could this Admin really choose to break the testing taboo and pop one off? Yes, of course they could, if they decided the benefits outweighed the costs. The benefits are mostly in the appearances. (2)

It won't provide any information about actual status of the force. And lab directors have often said they learn more about nukes from scientific tests than they used to learn from explosive tests. But performance art may certainly be the point here. (3)

The "leverage for arms control" point is bunk, this would cause everybody to run as fast as they could back to their own testing. But imagine the boss's reaction when you tell you him "You could create the largest explosion that anyone has seen in 25 (or 60) years! Maga! (4)

So, if performance art is the benefit (plus the resulting trashing of treaties), what are the costs. Many of you are emphasizing the proliferation issues, the international norms issues, the facts that others could use tests to get better technologies. These won't affect this (5)

Enraging the rest of world and reopening a nuclear testing race may actually be seen as a benefit (again, Maga!). But there are costs, and many of the decision makers are aware of them. As @james_acton32 noted last night, this will really mess with politics in Utah and Nevada (6)

There's also the fact, as @CherylRofer and I mentioned last night, that the only U.S. site is really close to Vegas. (This may only be a minor irritant if thy go for an atmospheric test). And then there's the actual cost of the test. It's not cheap, and would disrupt budgets (7)

This is where the lab directors come in -- if you ask them, they'd probably tell you that they want more money for science-based stewardship, and really have no desire to spend limited resources on demonstration shots (even if weapons designers will get a rush out of it) (8)

Besides, NNSA really wants a lot more money for the enterprise -- new production, new facilities, etc. Funding this adrenaline rush would be a distraction, at best, and, more likely, a disruption. Which leads me to the final, and possible most significant cost of this scheme (9)

The consensus, in Congress, on nuclear modernization is broad, but fragile. Pulling pieces out of the "box" could break the box. Pushing explosive testing into it will shatter it. Congress could (and likely would) pull funds for other DOD and NNSA priorities as punishment (10)

So, if you want to build a coalition against this idea, you might get in touch with the lab directors and others at NNSA. Maybe call the Air Force, and ask them if they're willing to sacrifice GBSD and LRSO. Whatever you do, follow the money, not the international outrage (fin.)