In the 1950s, the Atomic Age had arrived — and Las Vegas was ground zero for the public’s fascination with our headlong plunge into nuclear proliferation. 

Casinos and bars held watch parties for tourists to view the distant (or not-so-distant) mushroom clouds that would rise over the horizon. Early morning explosions were so bright, even citizens as far away as St. George, Utah, could clamber to high ground and get a glimpse of America’s atomic might. 

Of course, such testing didn’t come without unintended consequences. Nuclear fallout drenched unsuspecting “downwinders” as regular atmospheric testing continued over a barren patch of Nevada desert for 12 years. While testing was eventually moved underground to limit the public’s exposure, more than 900 explosions ultimately rocked the Nevada Test Site by the time the United States entered into a unilateral moratorium on weapons testing in 1992. 

It is a strange chapter of 20th century American history, beginning with a blissfully ignorant innocence about the potential long-term effects of radioactive fallout and ending long after the damage inflicted on nearby citizens had become blatantly apparent to the federal government. 

Nonchalantly resurrecting that strange episode of Cold War military theater would therefore seem unconscionable, right?

Well, with the sort of people currently running things, it’s hard to say. Just last week, President Donald Trump indicated that some sort of return to the type of nuclear testing that has long been paused in the United States might be “appropriate.” 

“We don’t do testing — we halted it years ago,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One. “But with others doing testing, it’s appropriate that we do also.” 

Taken at face value, his comments indicate an intention to return to non-zero yield tests — actual nuclear explosions to determine our arsenal’s capability. 

For those of us living next to the most-nuked patch of ground on Earth, that should raise a few red flags — especially because such testing doesn’t seem even remotely required to ensure nuclear capability today. After all, America has tested more nuclear weaponry than any other nation, meaning we’re not exactly lacking in data regarding the capability and condition of our stockpile. 

Just as important, however, is the lesson we should have learned from the Cold War: Proliferation begets proliferation. As experts with the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists warned in February, “A U.S. test could set off an uncontrolled chain of events, with other countries possibly responding with their own nuclear tests, destabilizing global security, and accelerating a new arms race.”

Indeed, it seems that escalation is already taking place in response to Trump’s comments.  

And for Nevadans, the effect would be far more personal than a few abstract headlines about a new 21st century arms race between nuclear powers. Our backyard would likely, once again, be the testing ground. 

To be sure, our understanding of the risks associated with nuclear testing has greatly improved since the days of atomic “dawn parties” and routine atmospheric blasts. However, that greater understanding should incentivize a continued reluctance to dabble in non-zero yield tests, not give us confidence that we can resume blowing holes in the desert some 65 miles north of Las Vegas without consequence.  

Understandably, Nevada’s congressional Democrats sought clarification from the White House — but it’s unlikely any real clarification is imminent. Over the weekend, Energy Secretary Chris Wright attempted to assuage concerns that we would soon be exploding any nuclear material, saying the “tests” Trump was referring to would be “noncritical explosions.” 

“I think the tests we’re talking about right now are system tests. These are not nuclear explosions,” Wright told Fox News. “So, you’re testing all the other parts of a nuclear weapon to make sure they deliver the appropriate geometry and set up the nuclear explosion.”

Certainly, that sounds far less concerning than polluting Nevada’s skyline with mushroom clouds. 

However, such tests are already a routine component of maintaining the stability and viability of our nuclear arsenal. What’s the point of Trump’s announcement if we’re merely planning on continuing the sort of zero-yield tests we already conduct? 

More importantly, Trump’s comments didn’t seem to indicate such limitations. Instead, the president promised we would effectively match the nuclear testing of our adversaries — many of whom are reportedly doing more than testing non-nuclear components of their weapons systems. 

In a recent post on X.com, for example, CIA Director John Ratcliffe declared Russia is likely conducting non-zero yield tests that are prohibited by the international nuclear testing moratorium. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) has gone on the record saying the CIA confirmed that Russia and China have conducted “super-critical” nuclear weapons tests. 

So, with “others doing testing” that seemingly includes actual nuclear explosions, what is the official plan for America’s testing protocols? 

We don’t know. And that might be what’s most concerning in the era of Trump: Either possibility seems just as likely, considering the utter lack of policy clarity emanating from the White House.  

Indeed, lack of clarity has been a defining characteristic of Trump’s second term. Even on his most important priorities, policy announcements have largely been a mess of ad hoc, whiplash-inducing, chaotic Truth Social posts rather than part of some transparent and deliberate policy agenda. 

The administration’s position on whether it intends to casually resurrect the Cold War’s legacy of bombing the hell out of some nearby Nevada landscape shouldn’t be similarly ambiguous. 

At the very least, we deserve enough of a heads-up to dig out the recipe for the 1950s atomic cocktail and organize a few ill-advised watch parties.  

Michael Schaus is a communications and branding expert based in Las Vegas, Nevada, and founder of Schaus Creative LLC — an agency dedicated to helping organizations, businesses and activists tell their story and motivate change. He has more than a decade of experience in public affairs commentary, having worked as a news director, columnist, political humorist, and most recently as the director of communications for a public policy think tank. Follow him on Twitter @schausmichael or on Substack @creativediscourse.