75 Years of Hugely Ghastly Hiroshima Bombing and The Dire Need for Disarmament
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Sukla Sen
Aug 6, 2020, 5:22:53 AM8/6/20
to foil-l
I/III.
https://www.city.hiroshima.lg.jp/site/english/158103.html?fbclid=IwAR1cMLAgJ8XZfRgjED3xvf-eORMGr6fCNzYjXWt1XSKxjb7MAkUe0dtd9TI
Peace Declaration (2020)
On August 6, 1945, a single atomic bomb destroyed our city. Rumor at the time had it that “nothing will grow here for 75 years.” And yet, Hiroshima recovered, becoming a symbol of peace visited by millions from around the world.
Humanity struggles now against a new threat: the novel coronavirus. However, with what we have learned from the tragedies of the past, we should be able to overcome this threat.
When the 1918 flu pandemic attacked a century ago, it took tens of millions of lives and terrorized the world because nations fighting World War I were unable to meet the threat together. A subsequent upsurge in nationalism led to World War II and the atomic bombings.
We must never allow this painful past to repeat itself. Civil society must reject self-centered nationalism and unite against all threats.
The day after the atomic bombing, a young boy of 13 saw, “… victims lying in rows on the bridge. Many were injured. Many had breathed their last. Most were burned, their skin hanging off. Many were begging, ‘Water! Give me water!’” Long after that horrifying experience, the man asserts, “Fighting happens when people think only of themselves or their own countries.”
Last November, when Pope Francis visited our city, he left us with a powerful message: “To remember, to journey together, to protect. These are three moral imperatives.”
Ogata Sadako, as UN High Commissioner for Refugees, worked passionately to assist those in need. She spoke from experience when she said, “The important thing is to save the lives of those who are suffering. No country can live in peace alone. The world is connected.”
These messages urge us to unite against threats to humanity and avoid repeating our tragic past.
Hiroshima is what it is today because our predecessors cared about each other; they stood together through their ordeal. Visitors from other countries leave the Peace Memorial Museum with comments like, “Now we see this tragedy as our own,” and “This is a lesson for the future of humanity.” Hiroshima considers it our duty to build in civil society a consensus that the people of the world must unite to achieve nuclear weapons abolition and lasting world peace.
Turning to the United Nations, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which went into effect 50 years ago, and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) adopted three years ago are both critical to eliminating nuclear weapons. They comprise a framework that we must pass on to future generations, yet their future is opaque. Now more than ever, world leaders must strengthen their determination to make this framework function effectively.
That is precisely why I urge them to visit Hiroshima and deepen their understanding of the atomic bombing. I further urge them to invest fully in the NPT Review Conference. They must negotiate in good faith toward nuclear disarmament, as stipulated by the NPT, and continue constructive dialogue toward a security system free from reliance on nuclear weapons.
To enhance its role as mediator between the nuclear-weapon and non-nuclear-weapon states, I ask the Japanese government to heed the appeal of the hibakusha that it sign and ratify, and become a party to the TPNW. As the only nation to suffer a nuclear attack, Japan must persuade the global public to unite with the spirit of Hiroshima. I further demand more generous assistance for the hibakusha, whose average age exceeds 83, and the many others whose daily lives are still plagued by suffering due to the harmful effects of radiation on their minds and bodies. And once more, I demand the political decision to expand the “black rain areas.”
At this Peace Memorial Ceremony marking 75 years since the bombing, we offer heartfelt prayers for the peaceful repose of the souls of the atomic bomb victims. Together with Nagasaki and likeminded people around the world, we pledge to do everything in our power to abolish nuclear weapons and open a path to genuine and lasting world peace.
August 6, 2020
MATSUI Kazumi
Mayor
The City of Hiroshima
II/III.
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/taking-nuclear-vulnerabilities-seriously/article32279584.ece
Taking nuclear vulnerabilities seriously
AUGUST 06, 2020 00:05 ISTUPDATED: AUGUST 06, 2020 01:12 IST
M.V. Ramana
Benoît Pelopidas
All nuclear weapon states have admitted to the possibility that deterrence could fail
Seventy-five years ago, the Japanese city of Hiroshima was destroyed by one single atomic bomb. Three days later, a second bomb destroyed Nagasaki. Those two bombs killed over 2,00,000 people, some of them instantaneously, and others within five months. Another 2,00,000 people or more who survived the bombings of these two cities, most of them injured, have been called the hibakusha. Because of the long-lasting effects of radiation exposure as well as the mental trauma they underwent, the plight of these survivors has been difficult. As Akihiro Takahashi, a hibakusha, testified: “I’ve been living on dragging my body full of sickness and from time to time I question myself. I wonderif it is worth living in such hardship and pain.” But Takahashi and other hibakusha lived on and talked about their experiences in the hope that their plight would never befall anyone else.
While Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been the last two cities to be destroyed by nuclearweapons, we cannot be sure that they will be the last. Since 1945, the United States, the SovietUnion/Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Koreahave armed themselves with nuclear weapons that have much more destructive power incomparison to those that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Damage and vulnerability
Over 1,26,000 nuclear weapons have been built since the beginning of the atomic age. Over2,000 of them have been used in nuclear tests, above and below the ground, to demonstrate their explosive power, causing grave and long-lasting damage to the environment and public health. But this damage is nothing compared to what might happen if some of the existing weapons are used against civilian populations.
An appreciation of the scale of the potential damage and a realisation that nuclear weapons could be launched at any moment against any target around the world should instil a sense ofvulnerability in all of us.
To appreciate why we are vulnerable, we should start by realising that there is no realistic wayto protect ourselves against nuclear weapons, whether they are used deliberately, inadvertently, or accidentally. The invention of ballistic missiles at the end of the 1950s, withtheir great speed of delivery, has made it impossible to intercept nuclear weapons once theyare launched. Neither fallout shelters nor ballistic missile defence systems have succeeded innegating this vulnerability. Nuclear weapon states are targets of other nuclear weapon states,of course, but non-nuclear weapon states are vulnerable as well.
The problems of deterrence
Nuclear weapon states have reacted to this vulnerability by coming up with a comforting idea:that the use of nuclear weapons is impossible because of deterrence. Nuclear weapons are sodestructive that no country would use them, because such use would invite retaliation in kind, and no political leader would be willing to risk the possible death of millions of their citizens.That was the idea of deterrence.
Deterrence enthusiasts claim that nuclear weapons do not just protect countries against use ofnuclear weapons by others, but even prevent war and promote stability. These claims do not hold up to evidence. Nuclear threats have not always produced fear and, in turn, fear has notalways induced caution. To the contrary, nuclear threats in some cases have produced anger, and anger can trigger a drive to escalate, as was the case with Fidel Castro during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Moreover, the apparent efficacy of deterrence in some cases may have been due to the more credible prospect of retaliation with conventional weapons. Countries with nuclear weapons have in fact gone to war quite often, even with other countries with nuclear weapons, albeit in a limited fashion or through proxies. Countries, however, might not always show such restraint.
Nor should nuclear deterrence be considered stable. Strategic planners routinely use worst-case assumptions about the intentions and capabilities of other countries to argue for the acquisition of greater destructive capabilities, driving endless upgrades of nuclear arsenals, and offering a rationale for new countries to acquire nuclear weapons.
Implicitly, however, all nuclear weapon states have admitted to the possibility that deterrence could fail: they have made plans for using nuclear weapons, in effect, preparing to fightn uclear war. The disjuncture between the ideal of possessing nuclear weapons for deterrence and the practical reality of keeping these weapons primed for use has been eloquently clarified by General Lee Butler, former Commander-in-Chief of the United States Strategic Command. After years of having the top operational responsibility for all U.S. strategic nuclear forces, he observed: “The goal — the wish, really — might be to prevent nuclear war, but the operational plan had to be to wage war.” It is thus an illusion to think that nuclear war is impossible.
The illusion of control
A related illusion concerns the controllability of nuclear weapons. In the real world, it is not possible for planners to have complete control. However, the desire to believe in the perfect controllability and safety of nuclear weapons creates overconfidence, which is dangerous. Overconfidence, as many scholars studying safety will testify, is more likely to lead to accidents and possibly to the use of nuclear weapons.
In several historical instances, what prevented the use of nuclear weapons was not control practices but either their failure or factors outside institutional control. The most famous of these cases is the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. There are likely many more cases during which the world came close to nuclear war but because of the secrecy that surrounds nuclear weapons, we might never know.
If deterrence has not prevented nuclear war so far, what has? While a comprehensive answer tothis question will necessarily involve diverse and contingent factors, one essential element inkey episodes is just plain luck. This is, again, best illustrated by the case of the Cuban Missile Crisis, where nearly four decades of scholarship attest to the crucial role of luck. The consequences of bad luck, then or later, could make the COVID-19 pandemic seem benign by comparison.
While humanity has luckily survived 75 years without experiencing nuclear war, can one expect luck to last indefinitely?
Benoît Pelopidas is the founder of the Nuclear Knowledges program at the Center forInternational Studies, Sciences Po, Paris. M.V. Ramana is the Simons Chair in Disarmament,Global and Human Security and Director of the Liu Institute for Global Issues, University ofBritish Columbia
III.
No Nukes: No More Hiroshima
Join the online conversation on Zoom with
Prof. Achin Vanaik
Dr. Vaishali Patil
Dr. Suvrat Raju
From 5:00 PM (IST) on 6th of August 2020
Meeting ID: 712256952
Passcode: IPCNAGPUR
CNDP
-- https://www.city.hiroshima.lg.jp/site/english/158103.html?fbclid=IwAR1cMLAgJ8XZfRgjED3xvf-eORMGr6fCNzYjXWt1XSKxjb7MAkUe0dtd9TI
Peace Declaration (2020)
On August 6, 1945, a single atomic bomb destroyed our city. Rumor at the time had it that “nothing will grow here for 75 years.” And yet, Hiroshima recovered, becoming a symbol of peace visited by millions from around the world.
Humanity struggles now against a new threat: the novel coronavirus. However, with what we have learned from the tragedies of the past, we should be able to overcome this threat.
When the 1918 flu pandemic attacked a century ago, it took tens of millions of lives and terrorized the world because nations fighting World War I were unable to meet the threat together. A subsequent upsurge in nationalism led to World War II and the atomic bombings.
We must never allow this painful past to repeat itself. Civil society must reject self-centered nationalism and unite against all threats.
The day after the atomic bombing, a young boy of 13 saw, “… victims lying in rows on the bridge. Many were injured. Many had breathed their last. Most were burned, their skin hanging off. Many were begging, ‘Water! Give me water!’” Long after that horrifying experience, the man asserts, “Fighting happens when people think only of themselves or their own countries.”
Last November, when Pope Francis visited our city, he left us with a powerful message: “To remember, to journey together, to protect. These are three moral imperatives.”
Ogata Sadako, as UN High Commissioner for Refugees, worked passionately to assist those in need. She spoke from experience when she said, “The important thing is to save the lives of those who are suffering. No country can live in peace alone. The world is connected.”
These messages urge us to unite against threats to humanity and avoid repeating our tragic past.
Hiroshima is what it is today because our predecessors cared about each other; they stood together through their ordeal. Visitors from other countries leave the Peace Memorial Museum with comments like, “Now we see this tragedy as our own,” and “This is a lesson for the future of humanity.” Hiroshima considers it our duty to build in civil society a consensus that the people of the world must unite to achieve nuclear weapons abolition and lasting world peace.
Turning to the United Nations, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which went into effect 50 years ago, and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) adopted three years ago are both critical to eliminating nuclear weapons. They comprise a framework that we must pass on to future generations, yet their future is opaque. Now more than ever, world leaders must strengthen their determination to make this framework function effectively.
That is precisely why I urge them to visit Hiroshima and deepen their understanding of the atomic bombing. I further urge them to invest fully in the NPT Review Conference. They must negotiate in good faith toward nuclear disarmament, as stipulated by the NPT, and continue constructive dialogue toward a security system free from reliance on nuclear weapons.
To enhance its role as mediator between the nuclear-weapon and non-nuclear-weapon states, I ask the Japanese government to heed the appeal of the hibakusha that it sign and ratify, and become a party to the TPNW. As the only nation to suffer a nuclear attack, Japan must persuade the global public to unite with the spirit of Hiroshima. I further demand more generous assistance for the hibakusha, whose average age exceeds 83, and the many others whose daily lives are still plagued by suffering due to the harmful effects of radiation on their minds and bodies. And once more, I demand the political decision to expand the “black rain areas.”
At this Peace Memorial Ceremony marking 75 years since the bombing, we offer heartfelt prayers for the peaceful repose of the souls of the atomic bomb victims. Together with Nagasaki and likeminded people around the world, we pledge to do everything in our power to abolish nuclear weapons and open a path to genuine and lasting world peace.
August 6, 2020
MATSUI Kazumi
Mayor
The City of Hiroshima
II/III.
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/taking-nuclear-vulnerabilities-seriously/article32279584.ece
Taking nuclear vulnerabilities seriously
AUGUST 06, 2020 00:05 ISTUPDATED: AUGUST 06, 2020 01:12 IST
M.V. Ramana
Benoît Pelopidas
All nuclear weapon states have admitted to the possibility that deterrence could fail
Seventy-five years ago, the Japanese city of Hiroshima was destroyed by one single atomic bomb. Three days later, a second bomb destroyed Nagasaki. Those two bombs killed over 2,00,000 people, some of them instantaneously, and others within five months. Another 2,00,000 people or more who survived the bombings of these two cities, most of them injured, have been called the hibakusha. Because of the long-lasting effects of radiation exposure as well as the mental trauma they underwent, the plight of these survivors has been difficult. As Akihiro Takahashi, a hibakusha, testified: “I’ve been living on dragging my body full of sickness and from time to time I question myself. I wonderif it is worth living in such hardship and pain.” But Takahashi and other hibakusha lived on and talked about their experiences in the hope that their plight would never befall anyone else.
While Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been the last two cities to be destroyed by nuclearweapons, we cannot be sure that they will be the last. Since 1945, the United States, the SovietUnion/Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Koreahave armed themselves with nuclear weapons that have much more destructive power incomparison to those that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Damage and vulnerability
Over 1,26,000 nuclear weapons have been built since the beginning of the atomic age. Over2,000 of them have been used in nuclear tests, above and below the ground, to demonstrate their explosive power, causing grave and long-lasting damage to the environment and public health. But this damage is nothing compared to what might happen if some of the existing weapons are used against civilian populations.
An appreciation of the scale of the potential damage and a realisation that nuclear weapons could be launched at any moment against any target around the world should instil a sense ofvulnerability in all of us.
To appreciate why we are vulnerable, we should start by realising that there is no realistic wayto protect ourselves against nuclear weapons, whether they are used deliberately, inadvertently, or accidentally. The invention of ballistic missiles at the end of the 1950s, withtheir great speed of delivery, has made it impossible to intercept nuclear weapons once theyare launched. Neither fallout shelters nor ballistic missile defence systems have succeeded innegating this vulnerability. Nuclear weapon states are targets of other nuclear weapon states,of course, but non-nuclear weapon states are vulnerable as well.
The problems of deterrence
Nuclear weapon states have reacted to this vulnerability by coming up with a comforting idea:that the use of nuclear weapons is impossible because of deterrence. Nuclear weapons are sodestructive that no country would use them, because such use would invite retaliation in kind, and no political leader would be willing to risk the possible death of millions of their citizens.That was the idea of deterrence.
Deterrence enthusiasts claim that nuclear weapons do not just protect countries against use ofnuclear weapons by others, but even prevent war and promote stability. These claims do not hold up to evidence. Nuclear threats have not always produced fear and, in turn, fear has notalways induced caution. To the contrary, nuclear threats in some cases have produced anger, and anger can trigger a drive to escalate, as was the case with Fidel Castro during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Moreover, the apparent efficacy of deterrence in some cases may have been due to the more credible prospect of retaliation with conventional weapons. Countries with nuclear weapons have in fact gone to war quite often, even with other countries with nuclear weapons, albeit in a limited fashion or through proxies. Countries, however, might not always show such restraint.
Nor should nuclear deterrence be considered stable. Strategic planners routinely use worst-case assumptions about the intentions and capabilities of other countries to argue for the acquisition of greater destructive capabilities, driving endless upgrades of nuclear arsenals, and offering a rationale for new countries to acquire nuclear weapons.
Implicitly, however, all nuclear weapon states have admitted to the possibility that deterrence could fail: they have made plans for using nuclear weapons, in effect, preparing to fightn uclear war. The disjuncture between the ideal of possessing nuclear weapons for deterrence and the practical reality of keeping these weapons primed for use has been eloquently clarified by General Lee Butler, former Commander-in-Chief of the United States Strategic Command. After years of having the top operational responsibility for all U.S. strategic nuclear forces, he observed: “The goal — the wish, really — might be to prevent nuclear war, but the operational plan had to be to wage war.” It is thus an illusion to think that nuclear war is impossible.
The illusion of control
A related illusion concerns the controllability of nuclear weapons. In the real world, it is not possible for planners to have complete control. However, the desire to believe in the perfect controllability and safety of nuclear weapons creates overconfidence, which is dangerous. Overconfidence, as many scholars studying safety will testify, is more likely to lead to accidents and possibly to the use of nuclear weapons.
In several historical instances, what prevented the use of nuclear weapons was not control practices but either their failure or factors outside institutional control. The most famous of these cases is the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. There are likely many more cases during which the world came close to nuclear war but because of the secrecy that surrounds nuclear weapons, we might never know.
If deterrence has not prevented nuclear war so far, what has? While a comprehensive answer tothis question will necessarily involve diverse and contingent factors, one essential element inkey episodes is just plain luck. This is, again, best illustrated by the case of the Cuban Missile Crisis, where nearly four decades of scholarship attest to the crucial role of luck. The consequences of bad luck, then or later, could make the COVID-19 pandemic seem benign by comparison.
While humanity has luckily survived 75 years without experiencing nuclear war, can one expect luck to last indefinitely?
Benoît Pelopidas is the founder of the Nuclear Knowledges program at the Center forInternational Studies, Sciences Po, Paris. M.V. Ramana is the Simons Chair in Disarmament,Global and Human Security and Director of the Liu Institute for Global Issues, University ofBritish Columbia
III.
No Nukes: No More Hiroshima
Join the online conversation on Zoom with
Prof. Achin Vanaik
Dr. Vaishali Patil
Dr. Suvrat Raju
From 5:00 PM (IST) on 6th of August 2020
Meeting ID: 712256952
Passcode: IPCNAGPUR
CNDP
Peace Is Doable
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages