The era of symbolic deterrence

President’s final announcement Donald Trump about what USA The possibility of resuming nuclear testing, in search of a supposed “strategic parity” with other powers, has topped news headlines around the world. This is not a column about the news itself, which has already been discussed enough, but about how power is viewed in this new era, which many call the “New Age.” The era of algorithms.

It is worth analyzing what a power like the United States is trying to communicate to the world when it threatens to return to archaic practices of the past, such as nuclear testing, in a multi-decade voluntary moratorium on nuclear-armed states, with the sole exception of North Korea, which carried out its last bombing in 2017.

Franklin Graham, US evangelical leader: “Trump and Millie believe they are where they are by the grace of God.”

That anachronistic past, in its time, consumed enormous resources in the pursuit of building increasingly sophisticated weapons that would never be used, sowing the seeds of intense tensions in a senseless race. This era of physical deterrence has been, for many, a lost opportunity for humanity, a pathetic mirror of power when it forgets its purpose.

The world has changed since then. Today, power is demonstrated not with uranium or plutonium, nor with deuterium or tritium, but with symbols, algorithms, and narratives. We see it constantly.

The US President’s statements, which were ambiguous by the way, came at a time when Russia was flexing its muscles by announcing tests of strategic launch systems such as the long-range torpedo. Poseidonwhich is marketed as a radiation tsunami, and a cruise missile BurevestnikCapable of carrying nuclear warheads. The statement was doubly suggestive: It came on October 29, just one day before Trump’s meeting with the Chinese leader. Xi JinpingGiven that the Asian giant has doubled its arsenal recently.

Washington’s perspective was clear: the United States could not be left behind in the face of such proliferation by its strategic adversaries. The power phase was needed, a reminder that you can still redefine the board if you want. Kind of Nuclear MAGA.

Those who interpreted that Trump was referring to explosive tests like the more than two thousand conducted during the Cold War reacted with emphatic condemnation. Even within the United States, opinions ranged from criticism to accusations of recklessness.

A line that should not be crossed

The contradiction was clear: if the goal was to achieve “strategic parity,” then the reference to conventional nuclear tests was not appropriate. Russia and China have noted this, called for the current fragile strategic stability not to be broken, and warned of the downward spiral that violating the moratorium would entail.

The fact is that today there is no technical need to conduct real explosions to maintain or develop nuclear weapons. The United States verifies the reliability of its arsenal through the program Inventory managementSimulation, supercomputing, and artificial intelligence models.

Given the concern, the government clarified that it was not talking about explosions, but rather about less serious tests. This was not enough to reduce the impact. In a context of global uncertainty, the word of a first-rate leader can carry the same weight as an actual nuclear test.

A vague statement can erode a structure Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)The 1996 treaty is considered one of the pillars of global security, although it has not yet entered into force due to the lack of ratification by major countries such as the United States, China and Russia.

Deterrence is changing its nature: it is no longer physical, but symbolic. There is more disagreement over who controls the security narrative than how many warheads each force possesses. Power becomes dialectical: saying you can is equivalent to power.

In this context, the nuclear test reappears as a metaphor: a rhetorical pulse to measure obedience. Explosions are discursive. Political pits.

The twentieth century experimented with atoms. Twenty-one experiments with algorithms, images—real or false—and the narratives that shape perceptions. Physical destruction gives way to strategic confusion and moral erosion.

In a world where technology allows us to simulate what once required detonation, and where words create facts, the challenge is to exercise power responsibly before the risks become uncontrollable.

Yet many of us still believe that power can be exercised wisely, if those who possess it remember that they also live in the world they endanger. It is not naivety; It’s strategic clarity.

* Chairman of NPSGLOBAL. Expert in strategy, geopolitics and artificial intelligence.