Reinforcing the Nuclear Taboo: 80 Years After Hiroshima

Why in the News?

1. 80th Anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings (1945): Marking the use of nuclear weapons in war, which instantly killed over 70,000 in Hiroshima and 40,000 in Nagasaki.
2. Recent Nuclear Threats and Tensions: Nuclear rhetoric from Russia during the Ukraine war and India’s statements during Operation Sindoor raise concerns about the erosion of the “norm of non-use.”
3. Nobel Peace Prize 2024: The Hibakusha-led organisation, Nihon Hidankyo, was awarded for decades of nuclear disarmament advocacy.

Key Highlights

1. Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
   1. On August 6 and 9, 1945, the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on the two cities.
   2. Over 70,000 people died instantly in Hiroshima, and similar numbers later due to radiation.
   3. Nagasaki’s bombing killed 40,000
2. Suppression of Early Information and Emergence of Awareness
   1. Post-war U.S. occupation suppressed knowledge of radiation effects.
   2. Relief centres were shut down, and thousands died without understanding their ailments.
   3. Awareness grew after the 1954 Castle Bravo thermonuclear test, which exposed a Japanese fishing boat, Fukuryu Maru, to radioactive fallout.
3. Rise of the Hibakusha Movement
   1. Survivors formed Nihon Hidankyo, advocating global nuclear disarmament.
   2. Their lived experiences humanised the abstract horror of nuclear war.
   3. Recognition came only after decades, culminating in the Nobel Prize in 2024.
4. The Norm of Non-Use
   1945. Despite growing nuclear stockpiles and modernisation, no weapons have been used in war since 1945.
   1946. This “norm of non-use” is not legally binding but built on moral consensus, deterrence, and international pressure.
5. Fragile Legal and Normative Framework
   1. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) regulate proliferation and testing, but do not ban usage.
   2. The 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons lacks nuclear states’ support.
   3. ICJ’s 1996 opinion acknowledges legal ambiguity, reinforcing the ethical imperative for restraint.
6. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
   1970. Background: Enforced in 1970.
   1971. Membership: 191 States.
   1972. India has not signed owing to discrimination of states into “nuclear haves” and “nuclear have-nots.”
   1973. Major Provisions of the Treaty
         1. Key Principles: Non-Proliferation (Parties to the Treaty should refrain from acquiring or transferring nuclear-weapons); Disarmament; Access to Peaceful Nuclear Technology.
         2. Role of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): Compliance with the Treaty is verified through inspections conducted by IAEA.

• IAEA was created in 1957 under the United Nations to promote safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear technologies.

1. Review of the operation of the Treaty: Every five years.

1. Significance of NPT in the present times
   1. Rising Nuclear Threats: In the form of small arms, evolving technologies like artificial intelligence, etc.
   2. Strengthening of Nuclear arsenals: As per Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), most nations have expanded their nuclear arsenals.

• Weakening Nuclear Diplomacy: E.g., Russia withdrew its ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).

7. Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)
   1. CTBT is a multilateral treaty opened for signature in 1996 by which states agree to ban all nuclear explosions in all environments, for military or civilian purposes.
   2. It was signed by 183 states and ratified by 164 but has not entered into force as eight specific states among 44 (so-called Annex-2 states whose signatures are required for the Treaty to enter into force, namely the US, China, Iran, Egypt, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea) have not ratified the treaty yet.
   3. In order to verify compliance with its provisions, the treaty establishes a global network of monitoring facilities and allows for on-site inspections of suspicious events.

Implications

1. Erosion of the Norm of Non-Use
   1. Rising geopolitical tensions (Russia-Ukraine war) threaten long-standing restraint.
   2. Tactical or limited-use nuclear strategies are being normalised.
2. Legitimacy and Recognition of Survivor Advocacy
   1. The delayed recognition of Hibakusha reflects historical neglect.
   2. Their testimonies offer a vital ethical counter to nuclear modernisation narratives.
3. Weapon Modernisation and Useability
   1. Modern nukes are smaller, more accurate, and designed for strategic use.
   2. Increases the risk of actual deployment, eroding deterrence logic.
4. Disconnect Between Legal Treaties and Moral Norms
   1. Treaties restrict certain behaviours but fail to outright prohibit use.
   2. Legal gaps persist despite humanitarian concerns and international advocacy.
5. Public Complacency and Risk of Miscalculation
   1. As nuclear memories fade, the risk of underestimating nuclear consequences grows.
   2. Missteps like Castle Bravo highlight the unintended fallout of nuclear tests.

Challenges and Way Forward

Conclusion

Eighty years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the restraint shown in avoiding nuclear warfare remains a fragile but vital achievement. While legal frameworks remain ambiguous, the moral force of survivors and public opinion has played a crucial role in upholding this norm. However, rising geopolitical tensions, nuclear modernisation, and erosion of global arms control demand urgent efforts to reinforce the taboo against nuclear use. The world must not wait for another catastrophic misstep to rediscover the horror of nuclear weapons.