Hiroshima bombing anniversary underscores nuclear risks from Russia and China

80th Anniversary of Hiroshima Bombing Sparks Discussion on Nuclear Threats

Wednesday marked the 80th anniversary of the United States’ first use of a nuclear bomb in Hiroshima, Japan, and just three days later, Nagasaki was bombed as well.

Rebecca Heinrich, a nuclear expert and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, shared her thoughts on the current landscape of nuclear threats. She pointed out that for the first time, the US is facing two nuclear adversaries, Russia and China.

Heinrich noted that both Moscow and Beijing are actively developing their nuclear capabilities and are, in many ways, collaborating against Western interests.

She added, “This is a much more complicated nuclear threat environment than during the Cold War when the Soviet Union was the sole nuclear foe for the US.” It certainly presents a serious challenge, especially with both nations heavily investing in nuclear technology even as they pursue their strategic goals.

Concerns are rising about the potential for nuclear conflict, despite the extensive devastation witnessed in the past. The bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended World War II, resulting in approximately 200,000 immediate deaths, with countless more suffering from the long-term effects of radiation.

These bombings not only concluded a major conflict but also transformed military doctrine, initiated a nuclear arms race, and entrenched the principle of deterrence through mutually assured destruction.

Earlier this year, an announcement from atomic scientists moved the “Doomsday Clock” one second closer to midnight, heightening worries about impending nuclear threats. The clock now stands at 89 seconds to midnight, with the scientists warning that “continuing our current course is a form of insanity.”

Amid the evolving landscape of global nuclear threat, Heinrich remarked that while the US has historically taken a leading role in nuclear discourse, it now appears to be retreating from this position. She emphasized that the current environment is complicated by Russia’s disregard for international nuclear treaties in the context of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and China’s expanding nuclear arsenal.

However, Heinrich pushed back against the narrative that deterrence is failing, arguing that it remains a crucial safeguard against nuclear warfare—despite the hostile rhetoric coming from nations like Russia. “It’s a serious threat, but the possibility of a nuclear apocalypse can’t solely be attributed to the number of warheads,” she explained.

She expressed concern about Russia lowering its threshold for nuclear engagement, using threats of nuclear action to exert pressure on countries like Ukraine, while suggesting that the US and its allies must maintain and enhance their nuclear capabilities, particularly in strategic regions like the Indo-Pacific.

In her view, the way forward shouldn’t be defined by fear or capitulation, as doing so might only encourage more aggressive nuclear policies. Instead, careful dialogues with adversaries are essential for de-escalation, emphasizing that the US possesses reliable means to respond to threats without resorting to nuclear conflict.