The administration of Donald Trump alleged that China conducted a concealed nuclear explosive test near the Lop Nur site in June 2020. U.S. officials claimed seismic data detected a 2.75 magnitude event consistent with an explosion rather than an earthquake, suggesting possible treaty evasion. Beijing has denied the accusation, calling it unfounded, while the episode has reignited debate over nuclear testing, arms control, and strategic stability involving China and Russia.

What the US Government Claimed

Speaking at the Hudson Institute, State Department official Christopher Yeaw stated that on June 22, 2020, China likely conducted a nuclear explosive test near the Lop Nur nuclear testing site. According to the U.S., seismic monitoring stations in Kazakhstan recorded a 2.75 magnitude event.

American officials argued the event was “not consistent” with natural seismic activity or typical mining explosions. They suggested China may have used a technique called “decoupling,” which is designed to muffle seismic signals and reduce detectability.

The allegations were presented in diplomatic discussions in Geneva and later reiterated publicly to reinforce concerns about transparency in China’s nuclear activities.

China’s Response

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China rejected the claims as “entirely unfounded.” Beijing maintains that it adheres to a voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing and complies with international norms, although it has not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).

China has consistently denied conducting explosive nuclear tests with yield in recent years and argues that U.S. accusations are politically motivated.

Strategic Context

The controversy unfolds amid broader concerns about China’s expanding nuclear arsenal. The United States Department of Defense has previously reported that China could increase its stockpile to around 1,000 warheads by 2030. The Pentagon also warned that China may be developing lower-yield nuclear weapons, potentially aimed at limited or tactical use scenarios.

Meanwhile, U.S. officials have also accused Russia of possible low-yield nuclear testing. The expiration of the New START treaty added further uncertainty to global arms control mechanisms.

Why Low-Yield Testing Matters

Some analysts argue that even small-yield tests can significantly enhance weapons reliability, miniaturization, and battlefield flexibility. Tactical nuclear weapons, often below 10 kilotons, are viewed as tools for limited escalation strategies rather than full-scale strategic exchange.

Critics of U.S. restraint policies contend that if adversaries are testing covertly, continued American non-testing could create strategic imbalance. Others warn that renewed testing by any major power could weaken global non-proliferation norms and increase nuclear instability.

Debate Over US Nuclear Policy

During his presidency, Donald Trump reserved the right to resume U.S. nuclear testing “on an equal basis” if adversaries were found to be violating norms. Supporters argued that credible deterrence requires a modernized and tested arsenal. Opponents countered that renewed U.S. testing could trigger a global arms race.

The debate reflects broader tensions between deterrence credibility and arms control commitments in a changing geopolitical environment.

Key Entities

Donald Trump – 45th President of the United States
Christopher Yeaw – Former U.S. State Department Official
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China – Chinese Government Foreign Affairs Authority
United States Department of Defense (Pentagon) – U.S. Defense Agency
New START Treaty – Bilateral U.S.–Russia Nuclear Arms Reduction Treaty
Russia – Nuclear-Armed Sovereign State

Final Verdict

The alleged Chinese nuclear test underscores rising mistrust among major powers and the fragility of global arms control frameworks. While Washington frames the event as evidence of treaty evasion and strategic risk, Beijing categorically denies wrongdoing. Without transparent verification mechanisms and renewed diplomatic engagement, nuclear ambiguity could further destabilize global security dynamics in an already volatile geopolitical landscape.