Emran Emon

When the United States dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, the world crossed a moral and technological threshold from which it has never truly returned. Hiroshima was bombed on August 6, and Nagasaki followed on August 9. These two catastrophic events claimed the lives of over 200,000 people, most of them civilians, and left a legacy of suffering, radiation sickness, and environmental devastation that lasted for generations. In one stroke, human beings discovered that they could destroy not just cities, but humanity itself.

In the aftermath of these bombings, the world came face-to-face with the unspeakable horrors of nuclear warfare. What followed was a Cold War era dominated by the arms race, nuclear deterrence doctrines, and a world perpetually on the brink of annihilation. Today, despite decades of disarmament talk, treaties, and anti-nuclear activism—nuclear weapons continue to cast a long, ominous shadow over global peace and security.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not merely tragic wartime acts—they were warnings to the world. Temperatures reached 4,000 degrees Celsius at the hypocenters. People were vaporized instantly. Entire city blocks were reduced to rubble. The survivors, known as hibakusha, suffered lifelong physical and psychological trauma. Children born years later carried genetic mutations, while the environment around the cities remained contaminated.

Yet even in the face of such unspeakable suffering, a sanitized narrative often emerged, largely shaped by American political and media propaganda. It sought to justify the bombings as a necessary evil to end the war, obscuring the fact that Japan was already on the brink of surrender. The absence of global accountability for this inhuman act allowed the world’s nuclear powers to treat nuclear weapons not as a moral outrage but as strategic tools of power.

Today, nine countries officially possess nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel (though Israel maintains a policy of ambiguity). The Cold War rivalry between the US and the USSR may have ended, but the dangers of nuclear conflict are far from over.

In Asia, nuclear dynamics have become especially complex. India and Pakistan—two historically antagonistic neighbors—are both nuclear-armed. The unresolved Kashmir dispute, coupled with frequent military skirmishes, leaves the region perpetually vulnerable to escalation. North Korea’s continued development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile capabilities represents another destabilizing force in East Asia, prompting the US and its allies to bolster military readiness in the region.

China, meanwhile, is modernizing and expanding its nuclear arsenal, likely as a counterweight to American and Indian capabilities. The buildup, combined with increasing geopolitical tensions in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait, raises serious concerns about accidental or intentional nuclear confrontations in the Indo-Pacific.

The primary argument for the continued existence of nuclear weapons is deterrence. It is believed that mutually assured destruction (MAD) prevents wars between nuclear powers. However, this doctrine rests on a dangerously thin layer of rationality and control. History has shown us how easily miscommunication, technical glitches, or rogue actors could bring the world to the brink of disaster.

There have been at least a dozen near-misses in the nuclear age—times when human error or misinformation almost triggered all-out nuclear war. From the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 to the Soviet false alarm incident of 1983, we have been repeatedly saved more by luck than by design. Can we entrust the future of humanity to luck?

Moreover, the very existence of these weapons undermines the idea of a peaceful world. They consume massive defense budgets that could be directed toward healthcare, education, and climate change mitigation. Their continued proliferation signals to smaller or unstable regimes that nuclear armament is a legitimate path to power and security—thus encouraging a global chain reaction of militarization.

Beyond geopolitics lies the basic humanitarian argument: nuclear weapons are fundamentally immoral. They are indiscriminate by nature. Their use cannot differentiate between combatants and civilians. They cause long-term environmental damage, making areas uninhabitable for decades. No emergency response system on Earth can deal with the aftermath of a nuclear explosion.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), adopted by the United Nations in 2017 and entered into force in 2021, is the first legally binding international agreement to comprehensively prohibit nuclear weapons. It bans the development, testing, stockpiling, use, and threat of use of nuclear weapons. While over 90 countries have signed it, none of the nuclear-armed states have joined. The treaty is a moral victory, but its practical enforcement is hindered by the very powers it seeks to regulate.

If the world is to have any real hope of peace, nuclear disarmament must become more than a noble ideal—it must be a global imperative. This requires not just treaties and diplomatic summits, but a concerted and inclusive approach involving governments, civil society, scientists, educators, and media.

Rebuilding Trust Through Diplomacy: Nuclear disarmament cannot succeed in an atmosphere of mistrust and hostility. Dialogue must replace confrontation. Confidence-building measures, open communication channels, and the revival of arms control treaties like New START (between the US and Russia) are essential. Multilateral institutions, particularly the United Nations, must play a proactive role in facilitating these efforts.

Empowering Civil Movements: Across the world, civil society organizations have long been at the forefront of anti-nuclear activism. From the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in the UK to ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons), these groups have mobilized public opinion, pressured governments, and inspired youth activism. Their role must be supported and expanded.

Shifting National Priorities: Nuclear-armed nations must shift their security doctrines away from deterrence and towards diplomacy and development. National pride should not be tied to the possession of doomsday weapons. Governments must be bold enough to reimagine what true national security means in the 21st century—human security, climate resilience, and social justice.

Education and Media Accountability: Generations born after the Cold War may not fully grasp the horror of nuclear war. Educational curricula must include the history and humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. The media, meanwhile, must resist state-driven propaganda that glorifies military power and instead foster narratives that value peace, cooperation, and human dignity.

Regional Cooperation in Asia:

Asian nuclear powers must realize that their collective security lies not in arms races but in regional cooperation. Confidence-building measures between India and Pakistan, a freeze on new weapons development, and joint participation in disarmament forums are steps in the right direction. ASEAN countries, Japan, South Korea, and others have a critical role to play in pushing for a nuclear-free Asia.

The world has learned the terrible impact of nuclear weapons in the ruins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet eight decades later, the lesson remains unlearned. We continue to live under the threat of annihilation, even as we profess our commitment to peace.

A peaceful world and nuclear weapons cannot coexist. The dream of a world without war, without destruction, without fear, can only be realized if we gather the collective will to dismantle these instruments of death. This is not merely a political choice—it is a moral obligation.

It is time for united efforts. It is time for humanity to choose life over annihilation, dialogue over destruction, and peace over power. Only then can we say we have truly moved beyond Hiroshima and Nagasaki—not just in history, but in spirit.

The writer is a journalist, columnist and global affairs analyst. He can be reached at emoncolumnist@gmail.com