Resuming U.S. nuclear weapons testing would likely cost tens of billions of dollars. Most experts estimate that restarting full-scale testing could range from 10 to 30 billion dollars, depending on how many tests are done and where they take place.
The main expenses come from rebuilding old test sites, updating safety systems, and managing radioactive waste. The U.S. stopped testing in 1992, so many facilities in Nevada and other areas are outdated or shut down. Bringing them back to working condition would take years of work and heavy funding.
There would also be costs for hiring skilled workers, improving monitoring technology, and making sure tests meet environmental and safety standards. On top of that, the government would likely face extra expenses from international backlash or treaty violations.
In short, restarting nuclear testing would be a huge financial and political challenge. It’s not just about the explosions themselves it’s about the infrastructure, security, and long-term impact that come with them.
How Much Would Resuming U.S. Nuclear Weapons Testing Cost in 2025?
Resuming U.S. nuclear weapons testing wouldn’t come cheap. A single underground test today could cost anywhere from $100 million to $200 million, and rebuilding the full testing infrastructure could push that total into the billions. The U.S. hasn’t tested a nuclear device since 1992, which means decades of disused tunnels, retired scientists, and outdated equipment. Restarting all that wouldn’t just take money it would take time, expertise, and political will.
When people talk about bringing back U.S. nuclear testing, they often imagine one explosion deep in the Nevada desert. But the truth is, that’s just a small part of the cost. The real price tag includes rebuilding the testing sites, hiring thousands of specialists, managing the environmental impact, and handling the political fallout at home and abroad. Let’s look at what it would really take, in simple terms, to make it happen.
The Baseline Cost of a Single Nuclear Test
If the U.S. decided to run just one nuclear test today, it wouldn’t be cheap. Experts say it could cost around $100 million to $200 million for one underground test. That’s not just about blowing something up it’s about everything that happens before, during, and after. You’d have to prepare the test site, drill deep holes, build protective structures, and bring in hundreds of trained people to make sure nothing goes wrong. Every wire, camera, and safety check adds to the price tag.
Back when nuclear testing was common, the costs were lower. In the 1980s and early 1990s, each test might have cost a few tens of millions of dollars. But prices have gone way up since then. Inflation alone makes everything more expensive, from the cost of steel to the wages of specialized workers. On top of that, new safety rules, environmental regulations, and updated equipment would make any new test even pricier today.
Think about what’s involved. You’d need engineers to plan the test, scientists to monitor it, security teams to guard the area, and emergency crews in case something went wrong. There’s also all the monitoring equipment to track radiation levels and collect data. These machines aren’t cheap. Most of them have to be built custom for the test, and they’re destroyed once the explosion happens. So each test is like starting from scratch.
There’s also the cost of preparing the ground. A test doesn’t just happen in a flat desert spot. Workers have to dig deep underground tunnels or shafts, install heavy cables, and set up complex control rooms miles away. That takes months and lots of manpower. Every part has to be checked and approved, sometimes by multiple agencies. All that planning and coordination burns through money before the test even begins.
Then there’s the cleanup. Even though underground tests are designed to contain radiation, there’s always the risk of leaks. So after the explosion, scientists have to test the soil, the water, and the air nearby. They might need to seal the test shaft or fill it with concrete. That’s another round of labor and materials, which means more money spent.
When you think about it, the test itself might be the fastest and cheapest part of the whole operation. It’s the setup and follow-up that eat up most of the budget. Just one day of testing comes after months or even years of preparation. And once it’s done, the site isn’t just left alone it has to be monitored for decades to make sure it stays safe.
If you compare this to older times, the difference is massive. Back then, the U.S. already had active test sites, full staff, and working equipment. Everything was ready to go. Now, after more than 30 years without a test, most of that is gone. Rebuilding just enough to do one single underground test would mean training new staff, bringing in experts, and restarting old systems. That’s one reason modern estimates are so high.
So when you hear that one nuclear test might cost $100 million or more, it’s not an exaggeration. It’s the real cost of safety, preparation, and responsibility. Testing a nuclear weapon isn’t like testing a car engine it’s one of the most complicated, high-stakes operations on Earth. Every step has to be perfect, and perfection comes at a price.
The Hidden Infrastructure Costs
When people talk about nuclear testing, they often imagine scientists pressing a button and watching a mushroom cloud rise in the desert. But that picture skips the most expensive part the hidden infrastructure behind it all. You can’t just walk out to the Nevada desert, flip a few switches, and set off a nuclear device. The last U.S. test was back in 1992, and a lot has changed since then. The tunnels, equipment, and skilled workers that made those tests possible have mostly been shut down or moved on. Bringing all of that back would cost a fortune.
Let’s start with the Nevada National Security Site, the main location for underground nuclear testing. The site still exists, but it’s a shell of what it once was. Many of the testing tunnels are sealed, the diagnostic systems are outdated, and a lot of the heavy machinery has been dismantled. To restart testing, crews would have to reopen tunnels, rebuild the control centers, and reinstall miles of thick cables used for sensors and monitoring. That alone could cost hundreds of millions of dollars before the first test even happens.
Then there’s the human side of things. The experts who used to run these operations have mostly retired. Nuclear testing is not something you can pick up overnight it takes years of experience and highly specific training. The U.S. would have to hire new engineers, train security teams, and rebuild technical crews capable of safely managing a live nuclear test. Recruiting and training those people adds millions more in costs and years of preparation.
The site’s physical systems would also need a serious overhaul. Power grids, communication lines, and monitoring stations that were built in the 20th century aren’t ready for modern testing needs. Today’s standards require advanced sensors, digital monitoring, and stronger safety controls to prevent contamination. That means building new facilities, running new fiber lines, and upgrading everything from air filters to data centers. Nothing about that comes cheap.
On top of rebuilding, there’s maintenance. Nuclear testing sites can’t just sit idle between tests. They have to be inspected, guarded, and maintained constantly. Equipment needs to be checked, safety systems recalibrated, and tunnels reinforced. Even if only one test is planned, the site has to meet every federal safety and environmental rule. That means more inspections, more red tape, and more spending.
And don’t forget security. A test site like this would be one of the most secure places in the world. You’d need armed guards, surveillance systems, and restricted access zones that stretch for miles. That kind of protection doesn’t just happen once; it has to be maintained year-round. The U.S. would spend tens of millions each year just keeping the site safe and ready.
If you add it all up, the “hidden” costs could easily outstrip the price of the test itself. A single underground test might cost $100 to $200 million, but rebuilding enough infrastructure to make it possible could push the total over a billion dollars. That’s before even considering the cost of environmental monitoring, waste disposal, or emergency systems.
It’s a bit like trying to restart an old amusement park that’s been closed for thirty years. The rides are rusted, the lights don’t work, and the people who knew how to run it are long gone. You can’t just turn it back on you have to rebuild everything from the ground up. The same goes for nuclear testing. Decades without use mean decades of decay, and every bolt, cable, and tunnel must be brought back to life before a single device can be detonated.
That’s why experts often say that restarting nuclear testing isn’t just a technical challenge it’s a financial mountain. You’re not paying for one explosion; you’re paying to resurrect an entire system that once supported hundreds of them. The hidden infrastructure costs are what make resuming nuclear testing such a massive financial and political decision for the U.S.
Research, Warhead Design, and Device Fabrication
Even if the U.S. rebuilt its testing tunnels and labs, there’s still another big cost most people don’t think about actually building the device to test. Nuclear tests aren’t done with leftover weapons from old stockpiles. Each test requires a specially designed device built for that specific experiment. That means scientists, engineers, materials, and years of careful preparation before anything ever explodes underground.
Let’s start with research. When testing stopped in 1992, the U.S. turned to computer simulations and subcritical experiments to keep its nuclear arsenal reliable. Those programs are still running, but resuming explosive testing would require a different level of readiness. Scientists at Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia National Laboratories would have to shift focus from simulation back to physical design. That means reactivating equipment that hasn’t been used in decades and retraining scientists who’ve never worked on a live test before.
Then comes the design process itself. A nuclear test isn’t about proving a weapon works it’s about collecting data. Engineers would build devices to test specific features, such as new materials or improved safety systems. Each design must meet strict safety rules and be built to withstand the pressure, heat, and radiation of an underground explosion. Even small design changes can take months to test and validate before a device is ready.
Building that device is where the real expense kicks in. You can’t just assemble nuclear parts like Legos. Every component especially the plutonium pit, which triggers the reaction must be created under controlled conditions. Right now, the U.S. has limited capacity to make new pits, and restarting production is already a multi-billion-dollar effort. The Department of Energy’s plan to expand pit production at Los Alamos and the Savannah River Site has run into years of delays and cost overruns. Adding live testing to that mix would push budgets even higher.
You also have to consider safety and compliance. Handling radioactive materials requires top-tier facilities with heavy shielding, specialized ventilation, and strict oversight. Every gram of plutonium and uranium is tracked, inspected, and stored under tight controls. The cost of keeping those materials safe not just from accidents but from potential theft adds another layer of spending.
And then there’s diagnostics. Testing a nuclear device isn’t just about seeing if it goes off it’s about capturing every millisecond of data. Scientists use hundreds of high-speed sensors, cameras, and radiation detectors, all wired into computers miles away. Much of this gear is custom-built and destroyed during the explosion, so it has to be replaced every time. Each sensor and wire adds to the cost, and the equipment to interpret that data adds even more.
Transporting the materials is another hidden challenge. Moving radioactive elements across the country requires armored convoys, special permits, and constant security. The Department of Energy and the Department of Defense work together on these operations, and they don’t come cheap. Each shipment has to follow federal and international safety rules, meaning extra costs for insurance, fuel, and personnel.
All this work would happen across multiple sites. Los Alamos might handle the design and assembly, Sandia might take care of diagnostics and safety, and Nevada would manage the test itself. Coordinating all those teams across different states means big logistics budgets and months of planning.
If you put it all together research, design, materials, safety, and testing the total cost could easily reach several hundred million dollars for just one device. And if the government planned multiple tests, that number would jump fast. Some experts estimate that a short testing campaign could run into the billions once research and production are included.
In short, restarting nuclear testing isn’t just about turning the lights back on in Nevada. It’s about rebuilding a massive research network that hasn’t operated at full power in over 30 years. The labs would need new funding, new staff, and new materials, all while following modern safety and environmental standards.
So when we talk about the “cost” of resuming nuclear testing, it’s not only about the explosion itself it’s about everything leading up to it. From the first pencil sketch on a scientist’s notepad to the final sealed tunnel, every stage costs time, skill, and a lot of taxpayer money. That’s why even a single test could carry a price tag that looks more like a national project than a one-time event.
Environmental and Safety Expenses
Even one underground nuclear test creates long-term environmental and safety challenges. When the U.S. stopped testing in 1992, part of the reason was that people were realizing just how much cleanup, monitoring, and health protection were needed after each explosion. The Nevada National Security Site looks quiet now, but beneath the surface lies a complicated legacy of contamination, radiation, and long-term responsibility. Restarting testing wouldn’t just bring back the explosions it would bring back all the costs that come with keeping people and the planet safe.
After a nuclear test, the ground around the explosion changes forever. The heat and pressure can turn rock into glass, create underground cavities, and release radioactive gases. Even though most of the material stays sealed underground, some can escape through cracks or ventilation shafts. That’s why scientists have to test soil, groundwater, and air for years after each test. Monitoring programs like that cost millions every year and can’t just stop once the explosion is over.
One major expense would be groundwater protection. At the Nevada test site, radioactive materials have been found in underground water near old testing zones. So, any new test would require deep monitoring wells, filtration systems, and decades of regular testing to make sure contamination doesn’t spread. These aren’t one-time costs they last for generations. Building and maintaining those systems could add tens of millions to the total price.
Then there’s the air and soil monitoring. Radiation can travel through dust or small leaks that escape to the surface. Modern testing would require advanced sensors, drones, and remote systems to track radiation levels across miles of desert. Each of those systems has to be installed, maintained, and reviewed by teams of experts, which means more contracts, more staff, and more money.
Safety for workers is another huge cost. The people who handle radioactive materials and work near test sites need constant protection. They wear radiation suits, use shielded equipment, and go through regular health checks. Even one minor exposure incident could spark lawsuits or shutdowns, so the safety protocols are strict and expensive. Health and compensation programs for test workers already cost billions over time, and new testing would likely reopen that chapter.
You also have to think about the cleanup. After a test, the tunnels have to be sealed with concrete to keep radiation trapped. The area is then fenced off, labeled, and monitored. That process takes months and requires heavy machinery and skilled labor. Each test adds another site that needs long-term care. Even tests done underground decades ago still require monitoring today.
On top of that, there’s the issue of waste. Nuclear testing produces contaminated tools, soil, and water that must be safely stored or disposed of. Special containers and disposal sites are needed, and the U.S. already struggles to find space for nuclear waste. Building or expanding disposal areas would cost even more.
Beyond the environmental side, the safety systems themselves are a major expense. The government would have to prepare for emergencies anything from accidental leaks to earthquakes disrupting test shafts. That means building shelters, setting up emergency response centers, and training local crews in how to react. Insurance and liability protections for nearby workers and towns would add further costs.
And finally, there’s public health. Communities downwind or downstream from the Nevada site still worry about leftover radiation from past tests. Studies have connected old testing fallout to increased cancer rates in some regions. Restarting testing would likely lead to new studies, lawsuits, and demands for medical compensation. Managing that alone could cost hundreds of millions over the years.
Altogether, environmental and safety expenses could rival the cost of the test itself. If one test costs around $150 million, the monitoring, cleanup, and long-term protection could easily double that number. And those costs don’t fade they stretch on for decades.
So when people talk about the “price” of resuming nuclear testing, they often forget this part. It’s not just about building the bomb or digging the tunnel. It’s about protecting the air, water, and people for generations after the test is over. Once you add all that up, you start to see why the real cost of nuclear testing isn’t just measured in dollars it’s measured in time, safety, and the trust of the people who have to live with the results.
Political, Diplomatic, and Legal Costs
Even if the United States could afford the billions needed to restart nuclear testing, there’s another kind of cost that money can’t easily cover the political and diplomatic fallout. Setting off a nuclear test in 2025 wouldn’t just shake the ground beneath Nevada. It would shake the world’s trust in America’s commitment to peace and nonproliferation. The last time the U.S. tested a nuclear weapon was in 1992, and since then, the global understanding has been simple: testing is off-limits. Breaking that understanding would set off a chain reaction far beyond the desert.
First, there’s the political cost at home. Many Americans remember the damage from past nuclear tests radioactive fallout, health problems in nearby towns, and a deep mistrust of government secrecy. Restarting tests would reopen old wounds. Lawmakers would be split. Environmental groups, tribal nations, and health advocates would launch lawsuits to stop it. The debates would drag on for years and cost millions in court battles, public hearings, and protests. Even before the first test, the political fight could drain time, money, and public support.
Then there’s the diplomatic cost. The U.S. signed the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996, even though it hasn’t officially ratified it. For decades, America has urged other countries not to test especially nations like North Korea and Iran. If the U.S. suddenly started testing again, that moral ground would collapse. It would be hard to convince anyone else to stop when the U.S. itself had broken the silence. That loss of credibility would hurt global nonproliferation efforts that took generations to build.
Other nuclear powers wouldn’t stay quiet either. Russia and China might see U.S. testing as an excuse to start their own. Smaller nuclear states like India, Pakistan, or North Korea could follow. Suddenly, the world could face a new arms race and that’s not just a political problem. It’s an economic one too. Every new weapon developed in that race costs billions, and every response by rivals forces the U.S. to spend even more to keep up.
Allies would also feel the shock. Nations like Japan and Germany, which rely on the U.S. for nuclear protection but also advocate for disarmament, would face public outrage at home. Diplomats would scramble to defend America’s actions while trying to explain why this test was “different.” International organizations like the United Nations would likely condemn the move, and even friendly nations could pull back on cooperation in protest.
There’s also the cost of compliance and treaties. Restarting tests could technically violate several agreements, like the 1992 testing moratorium or environmental treaties covering radiation and transboundary pollution. Each violation could lead to international penalties, sanctions, or trade complications. Legal experts estimate that defending those challenges could cost the government hundreds of millions in legal fees and diplomatic efforts.
On a broader scale, restarting testing could damage U.S. leadership in global arms control
. For decades, America has been seen as a leader in nuclear restraint. That reputation allows it to shape global policy, negotiate arms deals, and maintain influence over allied defense programs. Once that reputation is gone, rebuilding it would take decades and no amount of money could easily buy it back.
Then there’s the issue of global security costs. If testing sparks a new nuclear race, other nations would likely speed up their own weapons programs. That could force the U.S. to spend even more on defense just to maintain parity. The Congressional Budget Office already estimates that nuclear modernization will cost nearly $946 billion through 2034. Add a revived testing program on top of that, and you could see total costs soar far higher as other nations react.
Even within the military, the move could create tension. Some defense experts argue that computer simulations and subcritical tests already give enough data to maintain the U.S. arsenal safely. Others believe that real explosive testing is needed. That disagreement could divide agencies, leading to overlapping projects, policy confusion, and wasted spending as programs compete for funding.
Public trust is another cost to consider. Americans who grew up hearing stories of radiation exposure from the Cold War era would be skeptical of any new testing program. Local communities near the Nevada site, many of whom suffered health effects in the past, would demand guarantees and compensation. Paying for those programs would mean setting aside even more taxpayer money.
In short, resuming nuclear testing might look like a scientific or defense decision, but politically, it’s a powder keg. It would strain alliances, anger the public, and undermine decades of diplomatic progress. The financial cost could reach billions, but the cost to America’s reputation and leadership could be far higher.
In the end, the biggest price the U.S. would pay isn’t just in dollars it’s in trust. Once the world sees a mushroom cloud rise again over Nevada, no amount of speeches or treaties could fully undo what that image means.
Cost Scenarios From One Test to Full Rebuild
Trying to figure out how much it would cost to restart nuclear testing isn’t as simple as writing one big number on a page. The total depends on what kind of testing the U.S. would actually do. There’s a huge difference between running a single underground test just to collect data and rebuilding a full testing program like the one that ran during the Cold War. Let’s look at a few realistic scenarios to understand how the costs could grow fast.
The first and smallest option is a single underground test. This is the cheapest version, though “cheap” here still means spending roughly $100 to $200 million. That money would go toward digging the tunnel or shaft, installing sensors and cameras, preparing the test device, and safely managing the blast. Even one test would take months of work and hundreds of specialists. The Nevada National Security Site could probably handle this if the U.S. moved quickly, but after more than thirty years of inactivity, the site would still need upgrades, security improvements, and environmental preparation. So even a one-time test would likely creep up toward the higher end of the estimate.
Next comes a short-term testing program. Let’s say the government decided to conduct three to five tests over a few years. That means keeping teams in place, rebuilding key infrastructure, and creating new devices for each test. You’d need long-term contracts for engineers, scientists, and safety staff. The tunnels would need continuous maintenance, and more environmental monitoring would be required with each additional test. Suddenly, the cost jumps into the billions. Most estimates for this scenario land somewhere between $1 billion and $3 billion total.
In that range, the U.S. would have to invest heavily in diagnostic technology to collect better data from each explosion. That means high-speed imaging, sensors, and computer systems that can handle massive amounts of information. Each piece of equipment would only be used once, since it’s destroyed in the blast. The labs involved Los Alamos, Sandia, and Livermore would all need more funding to support that kind of work. And because these programs would operate under tight security and regulation, every extra step would come with more paperwork, oversight, and compliance costs.
The third and biggest option is a full reconstitution of the testing program basically restarting the system that existed before 1992. This would mean hundreds of tests over many years, full staffing at multiple labs, new tunnels, and a steady stream of new device designs. It would also require large-scale rebuilding of facilities that no longer exist or are in decay. The total cost? Easily over $10 billion, and possibly far more when you factor in research, environmental protection, and long-term cleanup.
A full rebuild would also stretch into the political and diplomatic arenas. You’d need to budget for constant security, legal defenses, environmental reporting, and international monitoring. All of that costs money, and those costs would keep adding up year after year. If the U.S. went this route, it wouldn’t be just a “testing program” it would be a permanent industry.
It’s important to see how each scenario connects to the bigger picture. The U.S. is already planning to spend nearly a trillion dollars over the next decade on nuclear modernization upgrading weapons, delivery systems, and facilities. Resuming testing would pile new costs onto that total. Even if testing only added a few billion, it would still make an expensive program even heavier.
There’s also the risk of cost creep. History shows that big defense projects often start small and grow bigger over time. Once infrastructure and staff are in place, there’s pressure to keep using them. One “limited test” could easily lead to another, and before long, a short program could turn into a long-term commitment with a budget far larger than anyone first expected.
Another factor is time. The longer it takes to prepare, the more expensive it gets. Delays mean paying workers longer, keeping equipment maintained, and continuing to fund safety programs. Even simple construction issues, like a collapsed tunnel or bad weather, can add millions in unexpected costs.
If you compare all these scenarios side by side, the picture becomes clear:
- One test: $100 million to $200 million.
- A short test program: $1 billion to $3 billion.
- A full rebuild: $10 billion or more.
These numbers don’t even include long-term cleanup or environmental monitoring, which would continue for decades. When you add those in, the cost only grows.
In the end, how much it costs depends on how far the government wants to go. A single test could prove a technical point, but it wouldn’t rebuild a lasting program. A few tests could refresh old knowledge but risk major backlash. A full testing revival would require a national-scale investment and could reshape the country’s defense budget for years.
So while people often ask, “How much would it cost to test again?” the real question is, “How far do we want to go?” Because once testing starts, the financial and political momentum makes it hard to stop. And as history shows, once the U.S. opens that door, it’s almost impossible to close it again without spending far more than anyone planned.
Why the Real Cost Goes Beyond Money
When people think about restarting U.S. nuclear testing, most focus on the price tag billions of dollars for equipment, staff, and cleanup. But the truth is, the real cost goes much deeper than money. It reaches into trust, reputation, safety, and even the way the world views the United States. You can rebuild tunnels and replace sensors, but once a nuclear test goes off, you can’t rebuild the trust it destroys.
Let’s start with the moral cost. Nuclear testing isn’t just a scientific act; it’s a statement. It says to the world that the U.S. is willing to cross a line that most countries have agreed to stay behind for more than 30 years. Since 1992, the U.S. has held up its end of the global testing moratorium, using simulations and lab experiments instead of explosions. Breaking that silence wouldn’t just reignite a blast underground it would send a loud message to every nation watching.
Countries that have followed America’s lead might decide to start testing again too. Others could see it as permission to expand their arsenals. The balance that’s kept nuclear weapons mostly in check for decades could unravel fast. That kind of global chain reaction doesn’t have a price tag, but its consequences could last for generations.
Then there’s the human side. Communities near old testing sites, especially in Nevada and nearby states, have lived with the effects of past explosions for years health problems, contaminated land, and a deep sense of betrayal. Many families lost loved ones to radiation exposure, and some are still waiting for government acknowledgment and compensation. Restarting testing could reopen old wounds and create new ones. No amount of money can undo that kind of emotional cost.
Environmental damage is another kind of debt that never really goes away. Radiation doesn’t fade quickly; it lingers in the soil, water, and even the food chain. Once testing resumes, the U.S. would have to live with decades of environmental monitoring and public concern. Even a single leak or mistake could undo years of progress toward restoring contaminated sites. You can pay for cleanup, but you can’t pay to make the planet forget.
The reputation cost is just as serious. For decades, the U.S. has positioned itself as a leader in nonproliferation a country that pushes others to be responsible with nuclear technology. Resuming testing would make that leadership ring hollow. Other nations could point fingers and say, “If America can test, why can’t we?” That loss of moral authority would weaken global negotiations and make it harder to prevent nuclear expansion elsewhere.
There’s also the cost of fear. Nuclear testing brings anxiety back into the public’s mind. People remember the Cold War drills, the fallout clouds, and the fear of escalation. A new test could spark protests, political unrest, and even panic buying or distrust in leadership. Once that fear spreads, it takes years to calm down and trust in government institutions takes even longer to rebuild.
Even within the scientific community, the return to testing could divide people. Many physicists and engineers believe computer simulations are accurate enough to maintain the nuclear stockpile safely. Others argue that live testing is needed. That disagreement could split funding, slow progress, and waste resources that could go toward cleaner, safer research. The cost here isn’t measured in dollars but in lost collaboration and divided focus.
And then there’s the cost of what’s lost in the process priorities, time, and global goodwill. Every dollar spent on nuclear testing is a dollar not spent on renewable energy, disaster relief, education, or public health. It’s a question of opportunity cost: what gets left behind when the government decides to pour billions into detonations instead of development.
So yes, restarting nuclear testing would be expensive, but the biggest costs aren’t the ones you can calculate. They’re the trust that’s broken, the fear that’s reignited, and the global stability that’s put at risk.
In the end, the true cost of resuming nuclear testing can’t fit into a budget report. It’s carried by people, by the planet, and by the fragile peace that’s held since the last test in 1992. Once that balance is disturbed, the world might spend far more in lives, in safety, and in trust than any government contract could ever cover.
Conclusion
When you add everything together the infrastructure, research, safety, environmental cleanup, and diplomatic fallout the real cost of resuming U.S. nuclear testing in 2025 becomes almost impossible to justify. A single underground test could cost around $100 to $200 million, but once you include rebuilding the testing site, hiring staff, and maintaining long-term safety programs, that number easily climbs into the billions. And that’s just for a few tests. A full return to Cold War–style testing could cost over $10 billion, not counting the environmental monitoring and global consequences that would follow.
But money isn’t the only price. Restarting nuclear testing would carry deep political and moral costs. It would shake public trust, damage the country’s reputation, and possibly trigger new arms races around the world. The U.S. has spent decades leading global efforts to reduce nuclear risks. A single decision to resume testing could undo that progress in one day.
There’s also the question of need. The U.S. already uses advanced computer models and subcritical experiments to keep its nuclear arsenal safe and reliable. Those methods cost far less and don’t risk spreading radiation or sparking global tension. They’ve worked for more than thirty years, and experts say they’re enough to maintain security without lighting another bomb.
In the end, restarting nuclear testing isn’t just about how much money it takes it’s about what kind of world we want to live in. The dollar amount is high, but the deeper cost would be in lost trust, renewed fear, and a step backward for global safety.
So maybe the real question isn’t “How much would it cost?” but “What would it cost us?” Because once the ground shakes again, it won’t just be Nevada that feels it it’ll be the whole world.