Connect with us

Science

What a Speech Reveals About Trump’s Plans for Nuclear Weapons

Published

on

What a Speech Reveals About Trump’s Plans for Nuclear Weapons

Within hours of the expiration last week of the final arms control treaty between Moscow and Washington, the State Department sent its top arms diplomat, Thomas G. DiNanno, to Geneva to lay out Washington’s vision for the future. His public address envisioned a future filled with waves of nuclear arms buildups and test detonations.

The views of President Trump’s administration articulated in Mr. DiNanno’s speech represent a stark break with decades of federal policy. In particular, deep in the speech, he describes a U.S. rationale for going its own way on the global ban on nuclear test detonations, which had been meant to curb arms races that in the Cold War had raised the risk of miscalculation, and war.

This annotation of the text of his remarks aims to offer background information on some of the specialized language of nuclear policymaking that Mr. DiNanno used to make his points, while highlighting places where outside experts may disagree with his and the administration’s claims.

What remains unknown is the extent to which Mr. DiNanno’s presentation represents a fixed policy of unrestrained U.S. arms buildups, or more of an open threat meant to spur negotiations toward new global accords on ways to better manage the nuclear age.

Read the original speech.

Advertisement

New York Times Analysis

Next »

1

Established in 1979 as Cold War arsenals grew worldwide, the Conference on Disarmament is a United Nations arms reduction forum made up of 65 member states. It has helped the world negotiate and adopt major arms agreements.

Advertisement

2

In his State Department role, working under Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Mr. DiNanno is Washington’s top diplomat for the negotiation and verification of international arms accords. Past holders of that office include John Bolton during the first term of the George W. Bush administration and Rose Gottemoeller during Barack Obama’s two terms.

3

This appears to be referring to China, which has 600 nuclear weapons today. By 2030, U.S. intelligence estimates say it will have more than 1,000.

Advertisement

4

Here he means Russia, which is conducting tests to put a nuclear weapon into space as well as to develop an underwater drone meant to cross oceans.

Advertisement
Page 2 of undefined PDF document.

New York Times Analysis

« Previous Next »

5

In this year’s federal budget, the Trump administration is to spend roughly $90 billion on nuclear arms, including basic upgrades of the nation’s arsenal and the replacement of aging missiles, bombers and submarines that can deliver warheads halfway around the globe.

6

Advertisement

A chief concern of many American policymakers is that Washington will soon face not just a single peer adversary, as in the Cold War, but two superpower rivals, China and Russia.

Page 3 of undefined PDF document.

New York Times Analysis

« Previous Next »

7

Advertisement

The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty or I.N.F. banned all weapons capable of traveling between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, or 310 and 3,420 miles, whether armed with nuclear or conventional warheads. The Trump administration is now deploying a number of conventionally armed weapons in that range, including a cruise missile and a hypersonic weapon.

8

The destructive force of the relatively small Russian arms can be just fractions of the Hiroshima bomb’s power, perhaps making their use more likely. The lesser warheads are known as tactical or nonstrategic nuclear arms, and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has repeatedly threatened to use them in Ukraine.

Advertisement

9

Negotiators of arms control treaties have mostly focused on long-range weapons because the delivery vehicles and their deadly warheads are considered planet shakers that could end civilization.

Page 4 of undefined PDF document.

New York Times Analysis

« Previous Next »

Advertisement

10

This underwater Russian craft is meant to cross an ocean, detonate a thermonuclear warhead and raise a radioactive tsunami powerful enough to shatter a coastal city.

11

The nuclear power source of this Russian weapon can in theory keep the cruise missile airborne far longer than other nuclear-armed missiles.

Advertisement

12

Russia has conducted test launches for placing a nuclear weapon into orbit, which the Biden administration quietly warned Congress about two years ago.

13

Advertisement

The term refers to the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Page 5 of undefined PDF document.

New York Times Analysis

« Previous Next »

14

Advertisement

A top concern of American officials is that Beijing and Moscow might form an alliance to coordinate their nuclear forces. Their joint program to develop fuel for atom bombs is seen as an indication of this emerging threat.

15

This Trump administration plan is dated November but was made public in December.

Advertisement

16

Released last year, this Chinese government document sought to portray Beijing as a leader in reducing the global threat of nuclear weapons.

17

Typically, arms control treaties have not required countries to destroy warheads so their keepers put them into storage for possible reuse. The United States retains something on the order of 20,000 small atom bombs meant to ignite the larger blasts of hydrogen bombs.

Advertisement

18

An imminent surge centers on the nation’s Ohio-class submarines. The Trump administration has called for the reopening of submarine missile tubes that were closed to comply with the New START limits. That will add as many 56 long-range missiles to the fleet. Because each missile can hold multiple arms, the additional force adds up to hundreds more warheads.

19

Advertisement

This refers to weapons meant for use on a battlefield or within a particular geographic region rather than for aiming at distant targets. It is often seen as synonymous with intermediate-range weapons.

20

Here, the talk turns to the explosive testing of nuclear weapons for safety, reliability and devising new types of arms. The United States last conducted such a test in 1992 and afterwards adopted a policy of using such nonexplosive means like supercomputer simulations to evaluate its arsenal. In 1996, the world’s nuclear powers signed a global ban on explosive testing. A number of nations, including the United States and China, never ratified the treaty, and it never officially went into force.

Advertisement

21

In new detail, the talk addresses what Mr. Trump meant last fall when he declared that he had instructed the Pentagon “to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis” in response to the technical advances of unnamed foreign states.

22

Outside experts say the central issue is not whether China and Russia are cheating on the global test ban treaty but whether they are adhering to the U.S. definition. From the treaty’s start in 1996, Washington interpreted “zero” explosive force as the compliance standard but the treaty itself gives no definition for what constitutes a nuclear explosion. Over decades, that ambiguity led to technical disputes that helped block the treaty’s ratification.

Advertisement

23

By definition, all nuclear explosions are supercritical, which means they split atoms in chain reactions that become self-sustaining in sufficient amounts of nuclear fuel. The reports Mr. DiNanno refers to told of intelligence data suggesting that Russia was conducting a lesser class of supercritical tests that were too small to be detected easily. Russian scientists have openly discussed such small experiments, which are seen as useful for assessing weapon safety but not for developing new types of weapons.

24

Advertisement

This sounds alarming but experts note that the text provides no evidence and goes on to speak of preparations, not detonations, except in one specific case.

Page 6 of undefined PDF document.

New York Times Analysis

« Previous

25

Advertisement

The talk gave no clear indication of how the claims about Russian and Chinese nuclear testing might influence U.S. arms policy. But it repeated Mr. Trump’s call for testing “on an equal basis,” suggesting the United States might be headed in that direction, too.

26

The talk, however, ended on an upbeat but ambiguous note, giving no indication of what Mr. DiNanno meant by “responsible.” Even so, the remark came in the context of bilateral and multilateral actions to reduce the number of nuclear arms in the world, suggesting that perhaps the administration’s aim is to build up political leverage and spur new negotiations with Russia, China or both on testing restraints.

Advertisement
Page 7 of undefined PDF document.
Page 8 of undefined PDF document.
Advertisement

Science

What to plant (and what to remove) in California’s new ‘Zone Zero’ fire-safety proposal

Published

on

What to plant (and what to remove) in California’s new ‘Zone Zero’ fire-safety proposal

After years of heated debates among fire officials, scientists and local advocates, California’s Board of Forestry and Fire Protection released new proposed landscaping rules for fire-prone areas Friday that outline what residents can and can’t do within the first 5 feet of their homes.

Many of these proposed rules — designed to reduce the risk of a home burning down amid a wildfire — have wide support (or at least acceptance); however, the most contentious by far has been whether the state would allow healthy plants in the zone.

Many fire officials and safety advocates have essentially argued anything that can burn, will burn and have supported removing virtually anything capable of combustion from this zone within 5 feet of houses, dubbed “Zone Zero.” They point to the string of devastating urban wildfires in recent years as reason to move quickly.

Yet, researchers who study the array of benefits shade and extra foliage can bring to neighborhoods — and local advocates who are worried about the money and labor needed to comply with the regulations — have argued that this approach goes beyond what current science shows is effective. They have, instead, generally been in favor of allowing green, healthy plants within the zone.

The new draft regulations attempt to bridge the gap. They outline more stringent requirements to remove all plants in a new “Safety Zone” within a foot of the house and within a bigger buffer around potential vulnerabilities in a home’s wildfire armor, including windows that can shatter in extreme heat and wooden decks that can easily burst into flames. Everywhere else, the rules would allow residents to maintain some plants, although still with significant restrictions.

Advertisement

The rules generally do not require the removal of healthy trees — instead, they require giving these trees routine haircuts.

Once the state adopts a final version of the rules, homeowners would have three years to get their landscaping in order and up to five years for the bigger asks, including removing all vegetation from the Safety Zone and updating combustible fencing and sheds within 5 feet of the home. New constructions would have to comply immediately.

The rules only apply to areas with notable fire hazard, including urban areas that Cal Fire has determined have “very high” fire hazard and rural wildlands.

Officials with the Board will meet in Calabasas on Thursday from 1 p.m. to 7 p.m. to discuss the new proposal and hear from residents.

Advertisement
  • Share via

Advertisement

Some L.A. residents are championing a proposed fire-safety rule, referred to as “Zone Zero,” requiring the clearance of flammable material within the first five feet of homes. Others are skeptical of its value.

Where is the Safety Zone?

The proposed Safety Zone with stricter requirements to remove all vegetation would extend 1 foot from the exterior walls of a house.

In a few areas with heightened vulnerabilities to wildfires, it extends further.

Advertisement

The Safety Zone covers any land under the overhang of roofs. If the overhang extends 3 feet, so does the Safety Zone in that area. It also extends 2 feet out from any windows, doors and vents, as well as 5 feet out from attached decks.

What plants would be allowed in the Safety Zone?

Generally, nothing that can burn can sit in the Safety Zone. This includes mulch, green grass, bushes and flowers.

What plants would be allowed in the rest of Zone Zero?

Homeowners can keep grasses (and other ground-covers, like moss) in this area, as long as it’s trimmed down to no taller than 3 inches.

The rules also allow small plants — from begonias to succulents — up to 18 inches tall as long as they are spaced out in groups. Residents can also keep spaced-out potted plants under this height, as long as they’re easily movable.

What about fences, trees and gates?

Any sheds or other outbuildings would need noncombustible exterior walls and roofs in Zone Zero — Safety Zone or not.

Advertisement

Residents would have to replace the first five feet of any combustible fencing or gates attached to their house with something made out of a noncombustible material, such as metal.

Trees generally would be allowed in Zone Zero. Homeowners would need to keep any branches one foot away from the walls, five feet above the roof and 10 feet from chimneys.

Residents would also have to remove any branches from the lower third of the tree (or up to 6 feet, whichever is shorter) to prevent fires on the ground from climbing into the canopy.

Some trees with trunks directly up against a house in this 1-foot buffer or under the roof’s overhang might need to go — since keeping branches away from the home could prove difficult (or impossible).

However, the board stressed it wants to avoid the removal of trees whenever feasible and encouraged homeowners to work with their local fire department’s inspectors to find case-by-case solutions.

Advertisement

What’s new and what’s not

Some of the rules discussed in Zone Zero are not new — they’ve been on the books for years, classified as requirements for Zone One, extending 30 feet from the home with generally less strict rules, and Zone Two, extending 100 feet from the house with the least strict rules.

For example, homeowners are already required to remove any dead or dying grasses, plants and trees. They also have to remove leaves, twigs and needles from gutters, and they already cannot keep exposed firewood in piles next to their house.

Residents are also already required to keep grasses shorter than 4 inches; Zone Zero lowers this by an inch.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

Video: Rescuers Mount a Likely Final Push to Save a Stranded Whale

Published

on

Video: Rescuers Mount a Likely Final Push to Save a Stranded Whale

new video loaded: Rescuers Mount a Likely Final Push to Save a Stranded Whale

Rescue crews mounted a likely final push to save a stranded humpback whale off the coast of Northern Germany on Friday. The large mammal, nicknamed “Timmy,” captivated the nation after it was stranded in shallow waters for weeks.

By Jorge Mitssunaga

April 17, 2026

Continue Reading

Science

1,200% jump in kratom-related calls to poison control centers in last decade, analysis shows

Published

on

1,200% jump in kratom-related calls to poison control centers in last decade, analysis shows

Over the last decade, poison control centers around the country have received tens of thousands of calls from consumers of kratom products reporting adverse and life-threatening health effects, with researchers saying reports in 2025 reached a new level. California’s poison center is reporting similar findings.

Last month, researchers analyzed information from the National Poison Data System and found that between 2015 and 2025, poison control centers across the nation received 14,449 calls related to kratom. More than 23% of those calls, or 3,434, were made last year, according to a published report in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That represents a more than 1,200% increase from 2015, when only 258 calls were reported.

Officers gather illegally grown kratom plants in 2019 in Phang Nha province, Thailand. The country decriminalized the possession and sale of kratom in 2021.

(Associated Press)

Advertisement

Kratom is derived from the leaves of Mitragyna speciosa, a tree native to Southeast Asia. It has a long history of being used for chronic pain or to boost energy and in the U.S., research points to Americans also using it to alleviate anxiety. In low doses, kratom appears to act as a stimulant but in high doses, it can have effects more like opioids.

But in the last few years, a synthetic form of kratom refined for its psychoactive compound, 7-hydroxymitragynine or 7-OH, has entered the market that is highly concentrated and not clearly labeled, leading to confusion and problems for consumers. The synthetic form gaining momentum in the market is sparking concern among public health officials because of its ability to bind to opioid receptors in the body, causing it to have a higher potential for abuse.

Los Angeles County leaders, meanwhile, have grappled with differentiating the two and regulating the products that come in the form of powder, capsules and drinks and have been linked to six county deaths. Sales of kratom and 7-OH products were banned in the county in November.

In reviewing the data, which did not differentiate whether callers had consumed natural or synthetic kratom, researchers set out to understand the effect of what they believe is a “rapidly evolving kratom market,” and highlight the role poison centers can play as an early warning surveillance system to detect new trends.

National Poison Data System findings

The data showed that over the last 10 years, 62% of the kratom-related calls to poison control centers were from people who said they consumed the drug by itself, and the other 38% were from people who combined it with another substance or substances.

Advertisement

Those who consumed kratom with another substance combined it most frequently with one or a combination of the following: alcohol, opioids, benzodiazepines (like Xanax or Valium), cannabis and cannabinoids, stimulants and antidepressants.

The data also broke down hospitalizations related to kratom — adults who took it alone or in combination and experienced “adverse” health effects; and adults who took it alone or in combination and experienced more serious “moderate” or “major” health effects, including death.

Kratom powder products are displayed at a smoke shop.

Kratom powder products are displayed in a smoke shop in Los Angeles in 2024.

(Michael Blackshire/Los Angeles Times)

Hospitalizations for adults who had consumed kratom alone and experienced adverse effects increased from 43 in 2015 to 538 in 2025. For those who took it in combination and were hospitalized with an adverse health effect, the total jumped from 40 in 2015 to 549 last year.

Advertisement

The numbers were even higher for hospitalizations where the health effects were more serious or fatal.

In 2015, there were 76 reports of people being hospitalized after taking kratom alone and experiencing a serious health effect or dying. By last year, that number had climbed to 919. The reports of serious health effects, including death, for those who took kratom in combination with another substance grew from 51 in 2015 to 725 last year.

The research does not break down kratom-related deaths by year but states that there were 233 deaths over the 10-year study period, or just over 3% of all 7,287 serious medical outcomes. Of the total number of kratom-related deaths, 184 cases involved the consumption of multiple substances.

What California’s poison control system found in its state data

The California Poison Control System is currently reviewing its data concerning kratom-related calls but an initial analysis shows parallels to the national report, said Rais Vohra, medical director of the state poison control system.

“We have about 10% of the national population and about 10% of the national call volume with poison control,” Vohra said. “And so, not surprisingly, we were able to identify over 900 cases of calls related to kratom in that same period.”

Advertisement

Local researchers are still deciphering the state data but they too have found that kratom-related calls are climbing.

“It’s accelerating, which I think is one of the main points of the [published] report,” Vohra said.

A majority of calls received by poison control come from healthcare facilities where “presumably someone has a problem … severe enough to warrant calling 911 or going to the emergency room, and that’s when our agency gets involved,” Vohra said.

Kait Brown, clinical managing director for America’s Poison Control Centers, said the fact that kratom and 7-OH are federally unregulated products sold online, in gas stations and smoke shops gives people across the country easy access.

And while kratom enthusiasts maintain that it has been used in its natural form for hundreds of years, “there are new formulations that are a little bit different than how people have used it, at least historically,” said William Eggleston, a pharmacist and the assistant clinical director of the Upstate New York Poison Center in Syracuse.

Advertisement

People are no longer consuming kratom only as a powder or capsule but also in the form of an energy shot or extract; it’s similar for synthetic, more concentrated 7-OH products.

When regional poison centers compare their findings and experiences with the analysis of calls in the National Poison Data System, Eggleston said, “undeniably there is an increase in calls related to kratom.”

“But when you put it in the bigger perspective of all the calls … this is still a very small percentage of what we’re dealing with on a day to day basis,” he said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending