weapons

China has ramped up its weapons development programs to a breathtaking degree, introducing waves of new missiles, ground combat systems, and vessels, as well as vastly expanding its nuclear triad. In just the past few months alone, China showed off gobs of new hardware, especially during its Victory Day parade in September. But above all else, Beijing’s developments in the air combat arena have been most stunning to observe. Autonomous combat drones, from relatively small to extremely large, and everything in between, to the emergence of tailless J-XDS and J-36 tactical jets, and ever sub-variations of them, as well as flying a stealth fighter from its new carrier, are among the revelations piling up at an increasing pace.

The status of these weapons programs and how many are real or merely meant to confuse and overwhelm foreign intelligence isn’t clear, but based on historic precedent, the notion that many are decoys isn’t supported. With so much development emerging publicly, and so much more going on clandestinely, along with other developments around an increasingly troubled globe, including from an active war in Ukraine, a critical question must be raised: Is the American intelligence apparatus able to deal with so much foreign technological change at one time?

Not since the height of the Cold War have so many military advancements and individual adversary weapons programs flooded the space. Does the U.S. intelligence community have the raw capacity to adequately deal with this now and sustain it for the foreseeable future?

With the Defense Intelligence Agency declining to comment and the CIA not responding to our queries, we reached out to a number of experts in the field to get their sense of how the U.S. intelligence community (USIC) is able to process and track this growing wave of weapons programs and provide adequate analysis for the White House, Pentagon and Congress. The responses we received vary quite dramatically. This is step one in trying to get a clear answer to this glaring question. We will be following up with more on the topic in the future.

The answers to our question from our experts have been lightly edited for clarity.

Timothy Heath, senior international defense researcher at RAND Corporation:

“China’s largest and growing inventory of modern weapons does pose a challenge to U.S. intelligence collection efforts. U.S. intelligence capabilities are quite sophisticated and can collect considerable data on systems once they are deployed. However, it is more useful to anticipate future weapons or programs in development and this is probably much more difficult for U.S. intelligence to accurately determine due to the secretive nature of Chinese weapons programs. Thus, U.S. intelligence is at some risk of being surprised by the emergence of new weapons systems.

Some types or programs are easier to monitor and predict than others. Warships, for example, are hard to hide and only built in a few locations. This makes it easier for U.S. intelligence to monitor. Missiles, directed energy, and hi-tech systems are smaller and easier to hide, which makes it harder for U.S. intelligence to collect.

Perhaps even more challenging than intelligence collection is the problem of how to counter the weapons. Chinese technology has improved considerably and many of their weapons and equipment systems lag only that of the United States. These are sophisticated and deadly systems and could pose a serious challenge to U.S. military forces on the battlefield. Developing counters to weapons such as hypersonic anti-ship missiles, advanced surface-to-air missiles, and stealth aircraft all require enormous sums of money and new technology. Even still, it is unclear if the U.S. can effectively counter some of these new systems, which raise questions about the ability of U.S. military forces to survive and fight in a conflict near China’s coast.”

Brad Bowman, senior director at Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) Center on Military & Political Power:

“Beijing revealed a remarkable quantity of weapons in the parade back in September. It is vital that the United States Intelligence Community and the Pentagon understand the capabilities of the systems displayed, distinguishing between systems that are hyped versus those that represent real advancements in capability. That is easier said than done and takes time and serious expertise to accomplish accurately. The importance and difficulty of this task is another reason why we need a large, effective, and well-funded intelligence community to understand our adversaries, their intentions, and their military capabilities – so decision makers can make informed decisions on how to respond.

I am all for efficiency in government, but the effectiveness of our intelligence community is a higher priority than efficiency, particularly in this dangerous geo-strategic moment for Americans.

It is possible that Beijing is happy to inundate the U.S. intelligence community with an enormous quantity of systems and munitions to scrutinize. But a more prudent approach in Washington is to assume that Beijing actually means what it says and is sprinting to develop and field military capabilities that it hopes could conquer Taiwan and defeat the U.S. military in the Pacific.

If Beijing is trying to portray more advanced military capabilities than it actually possesses, it would not be the first country to do so. Then again, we have also seen examples in which Americans were unwisely dismissive of adversary capabilities. We should neither exaggerate nor dismiss what we are seeing from China. We should try to understand the actual capabilities of each system, and then realize that those capabilities can change quickly.

When it comes to adversary parades and static displays, there is always more than one intended audience. Washington is no doubt on the short list of intended audiences, but Beijing is also sending messages to America’s partners, to the Chinese people, and to the PRC’s partners, including the other members of the axis of aggressors – Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

Regardless, the split screen between a historic expansion in military capabilities in China and a government shutdown in America could not be more jarring and troubling.”

Zack Cooper, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he studies U.S. strategy in Asia, including alliance dynamics and U.S.-China competition:

“I think the United States is certainly concerned about some of the new systems shown by Beijing, but many experts have expected China to continue developing more advanced uncrewed systems and long-range missiles, so I wouldn’t say that those are huge surprises. 

The United States has a number of intelligence agencies with deep expertise on weapons systems, so although I’m sure they are busy watching these new developments, I doubt that they are overwhelmed. At the end of the day, we’re really only talking about a handful of truly new systems, so the magnitude of the challenge is probably workable, even if it does require a substantial amount of time and attention at DIA and elsewhere.

Christopher Miller, former acting defense secretary from November 2020 to January 2021 during the first Trump administration:

“I don’t think there was concern about the ability to track and analyze Chinese weapons programs. It was a pretty standard collection requirement. Now, how effective they were ……I don’t know how effective they were. I am out of the business now. 

The large number of programs was not a concern. It was a pretty standard collection requirement. The challenge was prioritization because of so many different constituencies pushing their ‘pet rocks.’  But that is simply part of the churn. It was never a crisis issue — just typical process. 

Questions about being adequately resourced was the standard pathology of the IC — ‘they NEVER have enough resources’; the political masters don’t understand the National Intelligence Priorities Framework (NIPF)!! ‘Woe is us; etc.’  It was/is their SOP.”

Robert Peters, senior research fellow for strategic deterrence in the Allison Center for National Security:

“How overwhelming, or not, for the USIC are Chinese new weaponry like those seen so far in parade preps and programs, like the long-range bombers, UAVs etc? They are a problem, both the quantity and diversity of systems displayed, but we should not make the Chinese out to be 10 feet tall. It is unclear how many of these systems are real vs. how many are mockups. And even if they are all real, it is unclear how effective these systems are. 

As an example, the U.S. Air Force recently said that the Chinese ‘stealth bomber’ — which looks for all the world like a B-2 Stealth bomber— has no stealth characteristics at all, it simply looks like a stealth bomber.

Further, even if these systems are highly capable, it is unclear how or how well the PLA would employ them. The PLA has not fought in a kinetic conflict since 1979, so they have no real-world experience in combat operations. While they certainly exercise jointly, exercises are far different than battlefield effectiveness. So we should look at what the Chinese are producing with seriousness, but we should not be fatalistic about them. 

Is this affecting the USIC and the military’s ability to get a handle on this? The Chinese military buildup — particularly is numbers of fifth-generation fighters, naval surface combatants, missiles, and nuclear warheads — presents a real challenge for the United States, yes.

The quantity they are able to produce, coupled with their ability to focus their combat power on a specific theater close to home, is the challenge for us. Even if you believe that U.S. military capabilities are qualitatively superior to Chinese capabilities (which, I do believe), the U.S. is a global power. It has aircraft carrier strike groups operating in the North Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the Arabian Sea, and the Pacific. It has ground and air forces deployed on six continents. This is because the United States has global commitments. China is able to field an enormous quantity of combat power on the Western Pacific, focus it, and achieve results, even with a qualitatively inferior force, while the U.S. would be pulling forces from around the world during a contingency. 

It will require a significant amount of analysts to track and analyze these forces, but I think we have the manpower to make it happen.”

Once again, this is our first look into this unique facet of the growing military technology race between the U.S. and China. Stay tuned for follow-ups.

Contact the author: [email protected]

Russian President Vladimir Putin has told top Kremlin officials to draft proposals for the possible resumption of nuclear weapons testing, as Moscow responds to President Donald Trump’s order that the United States “immediately” resume its own testing after a decades-long hiatus.

The Russian leader told his Security Council on Wednesday that should the US or any signatory to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) conduct nuclear weapons tests, “Russia would be under obligation to take reciprocal measures”, according to a transcript of the meeting published by the Kremlin.

“In this regard, I instruct the Foreign Ministry, the Defence Ministry, the special services, and the corresponding civilian agencies to do everything possible to gather additional information on this matter, have it analysed by the Security Council, and submit coordinated proposals on the possible first steps focusing on preparations for nuclear weapons tests,” Putin said.

Moscow has not carried out nuclear weapons tests since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. But tensions between the two countries with the world’s largest nuclear arsenals have spiked in recent weeks as Trump’s frustration with Putin grows over Russia’s failure to end its war in Ukraine.

The US leader cancelled a planned summit with Putin in Hungary in October, before imposing sanctions on two major Russian oil firms a day later – the first such measures since Trump returned to the White House in January.

Trump then said on October 30 that he had ordered the Department of Defense to “immediately” resume nuclear weapons testing on an “equal basis” with other nuclear-armed powers.

Trump’s decision came days after he criticised Moscow for testing its new Burevestnik missile, which is nuclear-powered and designed to carry a nuclear warhead.

According to the Kremlin transcript, Putin spoke with several senior officials in what appeared to be a semi-choreographed advisory session.

Defence Minister Andrei Belousov told Putin that Washington’s recent actions significantly raise “the level of military threat to Russia”, as he said that it was “imperative to maintain our nuclear forces at a level of readiness sufficient to inflict unacceptable damage”.

Belousov added that Russia’s Arctic testing site at Novaya Zemlya could host nuclear tests at short notice.

Valery Gerasimov, the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, also cautioned that if Russia does not “take appropriate measures now, time and opportunities for a timely response to the actions of the United States will be lost”.

Following the meeting, state news agency TASS quoted Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov as saying that Putin had set no specific deadline for officials to draft the requested proposals.

“In order to come to a conclusion about the advisability of beginning preparations for such tests, it will take exactly as much time as it takes for us to fully understand the intentions of the United States of America,” Peskov said.

Russia and the US are by far the biggest nuclear powers globally in terms of the number of warheads they possess.

The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation (CACNP) estimates that Moscow currently has 5,459 nuclear warheads, of which 1,600 are actively deployed.

The US has about 5,550 nuclear warheads, according to the CACNP, with about 3,800 of those active. At its peak in the mid-1960s during the Cold War, the US stockpile consisted of more than 31,000 active and inactive nuclear warheads.

China currently lags far behind, but has rapidly expanded its nuclear warhead stockpile to about 600 in recent years, adding about 100 per year since 2023, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

France, Britain, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea comprise the remaining nuclear-armed countries.

The US last exploded a nuclear device in 1992, after former Republican President George HW Bush issued a moratorium on nuclear weapons testing following the collapse of the Soviet Union a year earlier.

Since 1996, the year the CTBT was opened for signatures, only three countries have detonated nuclear devices.

India and Pakistan conducted tests in 1998. North Korea has carried out five explosive tests since 2006 – most recently in 2017 – making it the only country to do so in the 21st century.

Such blasts, regularly staged by nuclear powers during the Cold War, have devastating environmental consequences.

Trump has yet to clarify whether the resumption he ordered last week refers to nuclear-explosive testing or to flight testing of nuclear-capable missiles, which would see the National Nuclear Safety Administration test delivery systems without requiring explosions.

Security analysts say a resumption of nuclear-explosive testing by any of the world’s nuclear powers would be destabilising, as it would likely trigger a similar response by the others.

Andrey Baklitskiy, senior researcher at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, said that the Kremlin’s response was a prime example of the “action-reaction cycle”, in which a new nuclear arms race could be triggered.

“No one needs this, but we might get there regardless,” he posted on X.

Russian MOD Belousov suggests Russia should start to prepare for a full-scale nuclear test in response to the US statements. Action-reaction cycle at its best. No one needs this, but we might get there regardless

— Andrey Baklitskiy (@baklitskiy) November 5, 2025

ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE — President Trump declined to say Friday whether he plans to resume underground nuclear detonation tests, as he had seemed to suggest in a social media post this week that raised concerns the U.S. would begin testing nuclear weapons for the first time in three decades.

The president told reporters “You’ll find out very soon,” without elaborating when asked if he means to resume underground nuclear detonation tests.

Trump, who spoke to reporters aboard Air Force One as he headed to Florida for a weekend stay, said, “We’re going to do some testing” and “Other countries do it. If they’re going to do it, we’re going to” but then refused to offer more details.

His comments on nuclear testing have drawn confusion inside and outside the government when the president seemed to suggest in a brief post that the U.S. would resume nuclear warhead tests on an “equal basis” with Russia and China, whose last known tests were in the 1990s. Some of Trump’s comments seemed to refer to testing missiles that would deliver a warhead, rather than the warhead itself. There has been no indication that the U.S. would start detonating warheads.

The U.S. military already regularly tests its missiles that are capable of delivering a nuclear warhead, but it has not detonated the weapons since 1992. The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which the U.S. signed but did not ratify, has been observed since its adoption by all countries possessing nuclear weapons, North Korea being the only exception.

The Pentagon has not responded to questions. The Energy Department, which oversees the U.S. nuclear stockpile, declined to comment Friday.

Trump’s post on nuclear tests came as Russia this week announced it had tested a new atomic-powered and nuclear-capable underwater drone and a new nuclear-powered cruise missile.

Russia responded to Trump’s post by underscoring that it did not test its nuclear weapons and has abided by a global ban on nuclear testing. The Kremlin warned though, that if the U.S. resumes testing its weapons, Russia will as well — an intensification that would restart Cold War-era tensions.

Vice Adm. Richard Correll, Trump’s nominee to lead the military command in charge of the nation’s nuclear arsenal, struggled to interpret the president’s comments when he testified before senators during a Capitol Hill hearing Thursday, telling them, “I’m not reading anything into it or reading anything out of it.”

Price and Ceneta write for the Associated Press. Price reported from Washington.

Minutes before he met with Chinese Premier Xi Jinping in Busan, South Korea on Wednesday, U.S. President Donald Trump issued a statement on social media saying he “instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis. That process will begin immediately.” The reason, Trump explained, was because of “other countries [SIC] testing programs.”

Other countries, he said, “seem to all be nuclear testing” but when it comes to the U.S., “We have more nuclear weapons than anybody. We don’t do testing. I see them testing and I say, well, if they’re going to test, I guess we have to test.”

Asked where the tests would occur, the president said, “It’ll be announced. We have test sites.”

At this point, it’s unclear if the president is talking about testing out nuclear weapons delivery systems, something that happens on a regular basis, or actual warheads via a detonation, which the U.S. hasn’t done in more than three decades. The fact that this has not been officially clarified is highly problematic. We reached out to the White House for more details, and they referred us back to Trump’s social media post. We also reached out to several experts for their insights, which you can read more about later in this story.

Testing that results in setting off a chain reaction, known as “critical testing,” last took place nearly a decade ago by North Korea on Sept. 3, 2017. The last U.S. critical nuclear weapons test took place on Sept. 23, 1992, according to the Arms Control Association (ACA). While Russian President Vladimir Putin recently announced the testing of a nuclear-powered cruise missile and a nuclear-powered, nuclear-tipped torpedo, which could have spurred Trump’s tweet if he really meant testing delivery systems, Moscow last conducted a critical nuclear device test on Oct. 24, 1990, according to the ACA. Meanwhile, China’s last test was on July 29, 1996.

In the interim, however, several nations, including the U.S., have conducted what is known as sub-critical testing, which does not result in setting off a chain reaction. It’s possible that expanding those efforts could be at least part of what Trump is referring to, as well. 

Clearly, restarting live nuclear weapons testing would be a massive departure for the U.S. and a very costly one at that. It would likely prompt other nuclear powers to return to live testing, as well. That is if this is what Trump was truly referring to. Assuming that’s the case, we contacted some of the smartest people we know who work on these issues for a living to give us an understanding of what such a revival would actually entail and how long it would take. Their answers have been lightly edited for clarity.

Our participating experts are:

Hans
Kristensen — Director, Nuclear Information Project, Federation of American Scientists. Writes the bi-monthly Nuclear Notebook and the world nuclear forces overview in the SIPRI Yearbook.

Jon B. Wolfsthal, Director of Global Risk, American Federation of Scientists.

Daryl G. Kimball has been Executive Director of the Arms Control Association (ACA) and publisher and contributor for the organization’s monthly journal, Arms Control Today, since September 2001.

Q: Can you tell me the process by which this could happen? What is the chain of command, and who has to be involved?

Hans Kristensen

A: The process for this would require the White House to direct the Department of Energy (DOE) to order the nuclear laboratories to start preparing for a nuclear test. And since the United States doesn’t currently have a nuclear weapons test explosion program, Congress would have to appropriate the money first. 

Jon B. Wolfsthal

A: Not sure what “this” is at this point. To conduct operational flight tests of US delivery systems, those are already underway for existing systems and systems in development. For nuclear testing, the US would need to fund the conduct of a nuclear explosive test. It would be conducted by the US Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration.

Daryl G. Kimball

A: The President has the legal authority to do this, but he needs authorization and appropriations for this purpose by Congress, and Congress can block or modify what he can do or under what conditions, etc. It’s the National Nuclear Security Administration, which is a semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy that is responsible for maintaining the existing warheads in the U.S. arsenal. They’ve been doing this since the mid-90s, since the U.S. halted nuclear testing in September 1992 through a very well-funded, sophisticated stockpile stewardship program, which uses non-nuclear, or I should say, non-testing methods, to maintain the seven warhead types in US arsenal.

Q: What specifically would be tested?

Hans Kristensen

A: It is hard to understand what Trump is referring to. It might have been triggered by Russia’s two new missile tests over the last week. But the United States already tests its nuclear weapons in similar ways by conducting test launches and laboratory experiments. If by testing he means nuclear explosive testing, that would be reckless, probably not possible for 18 months, would cost money that Congress would have to approve, and it would most certainly [result in] Russian and Chinese, and likely also India and Pakistan nuclear tests. Unlike the United States, all these countries would have much to gain by restarting nuclear testing. Besides, although there have been occasional rumors that Russia and China may have conducted very small-yield tests, I’m not aware of any reports that they have conducted significant nuclear test explosions.

Jon B. Wolfsthal

A: Again, it depends. This is not well explained by the President at this point.

Daryl G. Kimball

A: Well, this is a great question that the president’s people need to answer. Nuclear testing has historically been used to proof-test new warhead designs. Does the device explode? Does it detonate to the desired explosive yield? Does it have the characteristics that you want? That is the main reason why the United States conducted most of its 1,030 nuclear tests. What exactly they will be trying to figure out from a technical standpoint, I do not know, and frankly, there is no reason why the United States needs nuclear test explosions to maintain existing warheads in our arsenal.

So, looking at Trump’s statements, it’s pretty clear that whatever kind of nuclear testing he’s thinking about, it’s for political purposes. It is a juvenile kind of tit-for-tat reaction to what he perceives other countries are doing. And I would note that he claims that this is from an overnight quote on Air Force One, one you know, all other countries seem to be doing this. Well, those of us who follow these issues extremely carefully do not see any other country conducting nuclear explosive tests. So the president and his scientific advisors need to explain what he’s talking about. I would say that he appears to be confused and misinformed about this issue.

Q: How long would it take from the time of this social media posting until the tests take place?

Hans Kristensen

A: It would be expensive because the timeline for doing a simple explosion is six to 10 months, a fully instrumented test in 24 to 36 months, and a test to develop a new nuclear warhead is about 60 months.

Jon B. Wolfsthal

A: It would require anywhere from a few months to conduct a rapid explosive test and 18 months to conduct a fully instrumented test that would yield scientific results.

Daryl G. Kimball

A: I think it would take many months. I would put it at around 36 months to be able to conduct a nuclear explosive test underground that is contained. There are generally two kinds of tests. One is a demonstration test that simply says, ‘We have nuclear weapons and they explode.’ Then there is a test that is designed to derive some data about the weapon’s design to help understand how it’s working. A scientific test requires much more preparation and time than a simple demonstration test. In theory, the United States could fire a Minuteman III missile from the ground. Within an hour, it could detonate a nuclear device high in the atmosphere, and we would see that one of our nuclear warheads works. But that’s not what I think Donald Trump was talking about.

Q: Where could these tests take place?

Hans Kristensen

A: It can practically only be done in Nevada.

Jon B. Wolfsthal

A: The most likely spot is the Nevada National Security Site, which is the former US nuclear weapons test site about 45 minutes north of Las Vegas. No other location is currently capable or legally structured for the conduct of nuclear explosive tests.

Daryl G. Kimball

A: The Nevada National Security Site, which is nearly the size of Rhode Island, is where the United States conducted the majority of its nuclear test explosions, including 100 in the atmosphere, beginning in 1951. That is the site where, if there’s a military scientific need to resume testing, that’s where the United States has been planning for.

With so many questions about Trump’s nuclear testing statements still outstanding, we are waiting for further clarification from the White House. We will update this story with any pertinent details provided.

Contact the author: [email protected]

Pyongyang says the tests in the Yellow Sea were aimed at impressing its abilities upon its ‘enemies’.

North Korea has test-fired several sea-to-surface cruise missiles into its western waters, according to state media, hours before United States President Donald Trump begins a visit to South Korea.

The official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said on Wednesday that the missiles, carried out in the Yellow Sea on Tuesday, flew for more than two hours before accurately striking targets.

Top military official Pak Jong Chon oversaw the test and said “important successes” were being achieved in developing North Korea’s “nuclear forces” as a war deterrent, according to KCNA.

The test was aimed at assessing “the reliability of different strategic offensive means and impress their abilities upon the enemies”, Pak said.

“It is our responsible mission and duty to ceaselessly toughen the nuclear combat posture,” he added.

South Korea’s joint chiefs of staff said on Wednesday that the military had detected the North Korean launch preparations and that the cruise missiles were fired in the country’s northwestern waters at about 3pm (06:00 GMT) on Tuesday.

The joint chiefs said South Korea and the US were analysing the weapons and maintaining a combined defence readiness capable of a “dominant response” against any North Korean provocation.

North Korea’s latest launches followed short-range ballistic missile tests last week that it said involved a new hypersonic system designed to strengthen its nuclear war deterrent.

The latest test came hours before an expected summit between Trump and South Korean President Lee Jae Myung in the city of Gyeongju, where South Korea is hosting this year’s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meetings.

Trump has expressed interest in meeting with Kim during his stay in South Korea, where he is also scheduled to hold a summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

However, South Korean officials have said that a Trump-Kim meeting is unlikely.

Kim has said he still personally holds “fond memories” of Trump, but has also said he would only be open to talks if Washington stops insisting his country give up its nuclear weapons programme.

North Korea has shunned any form of talks with Washington and Seoul since Kim’s high-stakes nuclear diplomacy with Trump fell apart in 2019, during the US president’s first term.

Before flying to South Korea, Trump was in Tokyo, where he met with families of Japanese abducted by North Korea on Tuesday, telling them that “the US is with them all the way” as they asked for help to find their loved ones.

After years of denial, North Korea admitted in 2002 that it had sent agents to kidnap 13 Japanese people decades ago, who were used to train spies in Japanese language and customs.

Japan says that 17 of its citizens were abducted, five of whom were repatriated. North Korea has said that eight are dead as of 2019, and another four never entered the country.

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

Experts warned N Korea could launch provocative missile tests before or during the upcoming APEC summit in South Korea.

North Korea has fired multiple, short-range ballistic missiles towards waters off its eastern coast, South Korea’s military said, marking its first missile launch in months.

The launch of missiles on Wednesday morning comes a week before South Korea hosts the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, which will see Chinese President Xi Jinping, United States President Donald Trump, and other world leaders gather in the South Korean city of Gyeongju for talks.

South Korea’s military said that it “detected several projectiles, believed to be short-range ballistic missiles” fired towards the East Sea, which is also known as the Sea of Japan, the official South Korean Yonhap news agency reports.

“Our military has stepped up monitoring in preparation for (the possibility of) additional launches and is maintaining a steadfast readiness posture while sharing relevant information with the US and Japan,” South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said, according to Yonhap.

North Korea last fired short-range ballistic and cruise missiles towards the East Sea on May 8 and May 22 , meaning the latest launch is the first under South Korea’s new president, Lee Jae Myung, who took office in June, Yonhap said.

Experts had warned that North Korea could launch provocative missile tests before or during the APEC summit to underscore its commitment to being recognised as a nuclear-armed state, the Associated Press news agency reports.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un earlier this month displayed a new long-range Hwasong-20 Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), described as the country’s “most powerful”, during a huge military parade in Pyongyang, with top Chinese, Russian and other leaders in attendance.

The parade, which marked the 80th anniversary of the founding of North Korea’s ruling Workers’ Party, highlighted Kim’s strengthening diplomatic presence on a regional and global level and his consistent drive to build sophisticated weapons capable of delivering nuclear payloads.

Pyongyang has long rejected international bans on its weapons development, which it says is necessary to protect North Korea from potential attack by its enemies, the US and South Korea.

Trump met the North Korean leader during his first term in office, and said recently that he hopes to meet Kim again, possibly this year.

Pyongyang has said that Kim is open to future talks with Trump, but with the caveat that North Korea will never agree to relinquish its nuclear arsenal.

About 1,400 workers will be cut from the agency, which is responsible for overseeing the US nuclear weapons stockpile.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has announced that it will furlough about 1,400 workers at the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) starting next week due to the ongoing shutdown of the US government.

A spokesman at the Department of Energy, of which the NNSA is a semiautonomous branch, said on Friday that nearly 400 workers would remain at the agency, which is responsible for overseeing the US nuclear weapons stockpile.

President Trump’s energy secretary, Chris Wright, said “enough is enough” in a post on X on Friday, as he announced the planned furlough of NNSA workers.

“Starting next week, we’re going to have to furlough thousands of workers that are critical to modernizing our nuclear arsenal because of [Chuck] Schumer’s disastrous Shutdown,” Wright said in his post, referring to the US Senate’s Democratic party leader.

On Thursday, Democrats in the Senate voted against advancing a Republican bill to extend funding to federal agencies for a 10th time, and continuing the government shutdown that has now lasted for 17 days.

Starting next week, we’re going to have to furlough thousands of workers that are critical to modernizing our nuclear arsenal because of Schumer’s disastrous Shutdown.

Enough is enough!https://t.co/0jSorVkdkZ

— Secretary Chris Wright (@SecretaryWright) October 17, 2025

Republicans have blamed Democrats for the deadlock, as they continue to block the funding legislation to force Republicans to negotiate on healthcare subsidies.

Federal employees categorised as “essential” continue to work without pay during government shutdowns until they can be reimbursed when it ends.

Approximately 750,000 of the US government’s more than two million federal employees have been furloughed so far, along with tens of thousands of federal contractors.

The NNSA’s federal staff oversee approximately 60,000 contractors, who maintain and test nuclear weapons at national laboratories and other locations across the US.

The agency also works to secure dangerous nuclear materials around the world, including in Ukraine, where there is an escalating risk of nuclear disaster due to Russia’s invasion, according to the United Nations.

Nuclear weapons control expert Daryl Kimball, who is the executive director of the Arms Control Association, a nonpartisan organisation promoting arms control, criticised next week’s potential cuts to NNSA staffing.

“If the Trump administration really thinks the NNSA’s functions are important – and many of them are essential for nuclear facility safety and security – I am sure they can find the funds to keep the workers on the job,” Kimball said.

“Or else, they might want to rethink their position on the federal government shutdown,” he added.

Speaking to the Bloomberg news organisation on Friday, Energy Secretary Wright warned that modernisation of the US’s nuclear weapons programme will be slowed by the shutdown.

“We’re just getting momentum there … To have everybody unpaid and not coming to work, that will not be helpful,” he said.

The Energy Department said Wright would visit the National Nuclear Security Site in Nevada on Monday to discuss the impacts of the shutdown.

Earlier this year, NNSA employees were among hundreds of employees in the Energy Department who received termination letters as part of Elon Musk’s short-lived efforts to slash government expenditure through his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The Trump administration quickly scrambled to rehire the majority of the axed employees, issuing a memo days later rescinding the firings.

In a rare public rebuke, the Los Angeles City Council pressed the city’s top lawyer to abandon her attempt to halt a federal judge’s order prohibiting LAPD officers from targeting journalists with crowd control weapons.

One day before “No Kings” demonstrations against the Trump administration were set to launch in L.A. and elsewhere, the council voted 12-0 to direct City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto to withdraw her request to lift the order.

Hours later, Feldstein Soto’s legal team did just that, informing the judge it was pulling back its request — around the same time the judge rejected it.

Since June, the city has been hit with dozens of legal claims from protesters and journalists who reported that LAPD officers used excessive force against them during protests over Trump’s immigration crackdown.

The lawsuit that prompted the judge’s ban was brought by the Los Angeles Press Club and the news outlet Status Coup, who pointed to video evidence and testimonials suggesting that LAPD officers violated their own guidelines, as well as state law, by shooting journalists and others in sensitive parts of the body, such as the head, with weapons that launch projectiles the size of a mini soda can at speeds of more than 200 miles per hour.

“Journalism is under attack in this country — from the Trump Administration’s revocation of press access to the Pentagon to corporate consolidation of local newsrooms,” Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, who introduced the motion opposing Feldstein Soto’s legal filing, said in a statement. “The answer cannot be for Los Angeles to join that assault by undermining court-ordered protections for journalists.”

In a motion filed Wednesday, Feldstein Soto’s legal team sought a temporary stay of the order issued by U.S. District Judge Hernán D. Vera. She reiterated her earlier argument that Vera’s ban was overly broad, extending protections to “any journalist covering a protest in [the City of] Los Angeles.”

The city’s lawyers also argued that the ban, which bars the LAPD from using so-called less lethal munitions against journalists and nonviolent protesters, creates “ambiguous mandates” that jeopardize “good-faith conduct” by officers and pose “immediate and concrete risk to officer and public safety.”

In addition to Feldstein Soto’s request for a temporary stay, the city has filed an appeal of Vera’s injunction. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is taking up the appeal, with a hearing tentatively set for mid-November.

Council members have become increasingly vocal about their frustrations with the city attorney’s office. Two months ago, they voiced alarm that an outside law firm billed the city $1.8 million in just two weeks — double the amount authorized by the council. They have also grown exasperated over the rising cost of legal payouts, which have consumed a steadily larger portion of the city budget.

After Feldstein Soto’s motion was reported by LAist, several city council members publicly distanced themselves from her and condemned her decision.

In a sternly worded statement before Friday’s vote, Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez wrote that the city attorney’s “position does not speak for the full City Council.”

“The LAPD should NEVER be permitted to use force against journalists or anyone peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights,” said the statement from Soto-Martínez, who signed Hernandez’s proposal along with Councilmembers Ysabel Jurado and Monica Rodriguez.

On Friday, the council also asked the city attorney’s office to report back within 30 days on “all proactive litigation the Office has moved forward without explicit direction from the City Council or Mayor since July 1, 2024.”

Rodriguez said that Friday’s vote should send a message that the city council needs “to be consulted as a legislative body that is independently elected by the people.”

“What I hope is that this becomes a more permanent act of this body — to exercise its role in oversight,” she said.

Carol Sobel, the civil rights attorney who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs, welcomed the council’s action. Still, she said Feldstein Soto’s filings in the case raise questions about whose interests the city attorney is representing.

“Sometimes you say ‘Mea culpa, we were wrong. We shouldn’t have shot people in the head, despite our policies,’” she said.

Ukraine says it will need $120bn in defence funding in 2026 to stave off Russia’s more than three-year war.

Germany has pledged more than $2bn in military aid for Ukraine, as the government in Kyiv signalled that it would need $120bn in 2026 to stave off Russia’s nearly four-year all-out war.

Speaking on Wednesday at a Ukraine Defence Contact Group meeting in Brussels, German Foreign Minister Boris Pistorius said that Western allies must maintain their resolve and provide more weapons to Ukraine.

“You can count on Germany. We will continue and expand our support for Ukraine. With new contracts, Germany will provide additional support amounting to over 2 billion euros [$2.3bn],” Pistorius told the meeting in Brussels, which was also attended by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Ukrainian Defence Minister Denys Shmyhal.

“The package addresses a number of urgent requirements of Ukraine. It provides air defence systems, Patriot interceptors, radar systems and precision guided artillery, rockets and ammunition,” Pistorius said, adding that Germany will also deliver two additional IRIS-T air defence systems to Ukraine, including a large number of guided missiles and shoulder-fired air defence missiles.

In recent months, the transatlantic alliance started to coordinate regular deliveries of large weapons packages to Ukraine to help fend off Russia’s war.

Spare weapons stocks in European arsenals have all but dried up, and only the United States has a sufficient store of ready weapons that Ukraine most needs.

Under the financial arrangement – known as the Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) – European allies and Canada are buying US weapons to help Kyiv keep Russian forces at bay. About $2bn worth had previously been allocated since August.

Germany’s pledge came as Ukraine’s Western backers gathered to drum up more military support for their beleaguered partner.

Shmyhal put his country’s defence needs next year at $120bn. “Ukraine will cover half, $60bn, from our national resources. We are asking partners to join us in covering the other half,” he said.

Air defence systems are most in need. Shmyhal said that last month alone, Russia “launched over 5,600 strike drones and more than 180 missiles targeting our civilian infrastructure and people”.

The new pledges of support came a day after new data showed that foreign military aid to Ukraine had declined sharply recently. Despite the PURL programme, support plunged by 43 percent in July and August compared to the first half of the year, according to Germany’s Kiel Institute, which tracks such deliveries and funding.

Hegseth said that “all countries need to translate goals into guns, commitments into capabilities and pledges into power. That’s all that matters. Hard power. It’s the only thing belligerents actually respect.”

The administration of US President Donald Trump hasn’t donated military equipment to Ukraine. It has been weighing whether to send Tomahawk long-range missiles if Russia doesn’t wind down its war soon, but it remains unclear who will pay for those weapons, should they be approved.

US President Donald Trump told Israel’s parliament that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had often asked him for weapons during the Gaza war, including “some I’d never heard of.” More than 67,000 people have been killed by Israeli forces in Gaza.