The escalation surrounding the B61 modernization plan drew sharp criticism from Melissa Park, the head of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). She described the move as an irresponsible step that intensifies tensions at a moment when conflicts linger across Europe and the Middle East. Her remarks were reported in connection with ICAN’s public statement, underscoring concerns about how these upgrades could reshape strategic balances and threaten civilian safety.
According to Park, upgrading a core element of the U.S. nuclear arsenal would not simply improve deterrence. It risks triggering a broader cycle of modernization among nuclear-armed states and invites a new kind of arms race that could overshadow diplomacy, stability, and regional security. The ICAN position stresses that the extension of such weapons into a renewed competition for superiority could set a dangerous precedent for how nations respond to perceived threats (ICAN statement).
Park emphasized that deploying more capable nuclear devices would raise the likelihood of civilian harm and damage critical infrastructure in any potential conflict. She argued that the prospect of using such weapons constitutes a grave violation of international humanitarian law and could be classified as a war crime if civilian populations bear the brunt of their effects. The timing of the announcement, amid ongoing tensions among nuclear-armed states, adds fuel to a volatile strategic environment and is described as provocative by ICAN advocates (ICAN briefing).
In related developments, U.S. officials confirmed a decision to upgrade the B61 gravity bomb to a more modern variant, identified as B61-13, while maintaining the overall count of deployed nuclear weapons. Observers note that the move focuses on improvements in accuracy, safety, and extensibility rather than changing the size of the arsenal, but critics argue that any modernization sends a political message about intent and capability in a tense global landscape (Pentagon announcement).
Meanwhile, discussions around NATO’s nuclear posture persist as part of broader strategic exercises. The alliance’s annual Steadfast Noon program has historically served as a platform to rehearse the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Critics view the drills as a reminder of the ongoing risk of miscalculation or escalation as tactical weapons are integrated into existing deterrence frameworks. Proponents, however, point to the exercises as a routine element of alliance readiness and deterrence diplomacy that helps prevent misinterpretation by potential adversaries (NATO briefing).
In broader context, past and current testing and research activities at nuclear facilities are cited by various observers as indicators of a continuing commitment to modernize capabilities. Advocates for disarmament call these activities a signal that the global community must accelerate efforts toward verification, transparency, and irreversible reductions. The conversation around modernization thus intersects with wider debates about arms control, compliance with international treaties, and the moral responsibilities of nuclear-armed states in preventing catastrophe (policy analysis).