The idea of resuming nuclear testing in the Nevada desert, a few hours from Las Vegas, has recently resurfaced in the American political debate. During his term in office, Donald Trump’s administration considered reactivating the testing programme at Nevada’s national nuclear site.
A site steeped in history
The Nevada National Security Site, formerly known as the Nevada Test Site, is located around 105 kilometres north-west of Las Vegas. It was here that the majority of nuclear tests were carried out on American soil between 1951 and 1992.
At the time, Las Vegas was undergoing a major transformation. In the 1930s and 1940s, the city had already established itself as a major entertainment venue, but the local Chamber of Commerce sought to go further, eager to make Vegas ‘the entertainment capital of the world’. When the first trials took place, it seemed the ideal opportunity to reinforce the image of a unique city, different from the rest of the country.
A strange fusion of spectacle and atomic threat was born. Just a few days after the first explosion, on 27 January 1951, the hotels on the Strip distributed press releases announcing test schedules so that visitors could plan their evenings and mornings. Special parties, called Dawn Bomb Parties, were organised on the rooftops of the casinos, where people sipped cocktails with evocative names, such as Atomic Sunrise, while waiting for a nuclear mushroom cloud to rise on the horizon.
However, this staging of the atom eventually came up against reality. In the early 1960s, residents of several nearby regions began to report animal malformations, burns to livestock and an increase in serious illnesses. Public awareness of the dangers of radioactive fallout was growing.
In 1963, the signing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty put an end to atmospheric explosions. The Nevada site continued to host underground tests until 1992, but the days of watching the explosions from the bars on the Strip are now history.
A divisive political desire
According to Donald Trump‘s administration, the idea of resuming nuclear testing is part of a strategic context. In particular, the aim is to demonstrate the United States’ military capability in the face of Russia and China, which are accused of conducting or preparing for similar tests.
This strategic justification seemed insufficient to many Nevada officials. As soon as the announcement was made, local elected representatives, both Democrats and Republicans, voiced their disagreement. Their message was clear: Nevada has already paid too high a price. What’s more, experts agree that the United States now has advanced simulation technologies that can ensure the reliability of its nuclear arsenal without recourse to underground or atmospheric detonations.
The governor of Nevada, Steve Sisolak, said he was firmly opposed to any resumption of testing, pointing to the lasting impact on public health of past generations. In his view, revisiting this past would be tantamount to reliving a page that the State is still trying to turn.
Senators Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen have also denounced the project, insisting that no military justification could compensate for the risk to local populations.
The local economy, which relies heavily on tourism, is also concerned. Las Vegas has long struggled to reinforce its modern, safe image. The idea of an active nuclear test zone nearby could tarnish this fragile reputation and affect the appeal to tourists.
Conclusion
The prospect of a return to nuclear testing near Las Vegas acts like a mirror held up to the past. It highlights the fragility of the link between the imperative of national security and responsibility towards the population. Nevada’s response to this project has been clear, strong and unified: the memory of this territory, the scars that are still visible and the persistent dangers must not be ignored.