The US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima 80 years ago. Although the number of deaths at that moment was not a record for World War II (for example, more than 100,000 people died in the bombing of Tokyo in the spring of 1945), it was the strike on Hiroshima that became a turning point in history: the nuclear age began.
The threat of nuclear winter hangs over planet
The new weapon exposed a frightening reality to humanity: the possibility of self-destruction was no longer just theoretical — it had become technically feasible. The threat came not so much from the nuclear explosions themselves as from their long-term consequences, including a potential “nuclear winter.”
Despite the shock, in the early post-war years, the US, as the sole nuclear power, seriously considered using atomic bombs in new conflicts. However, the situation changed when the Soviet Union developed its own nuclear weapons. A balance of fear emerged — the threat of retaliation made the reuse of the bomb extremely risky. An arms race began, ending in the 1970s with the establishment of nuclear parity. From that moment on, the idea of using nuclear weapons against a comparable enemy virtually disappeared from political calculations.
Gradually, the UK, France, China and, unofficially, Israel joined the nuclear club. Later, India, Pakistan and, already in the 21st century, North Korea followed suit. Some countries renounced nuclear weapons under external pressure, as was the case with South Africa and Libya.
For a long time, there was an international consensus that the further proliferation of nuclear weapons was unacceptable. This was the rationale behind the sanctions against Iran and North Korea adopted by the UN Security Council in the 2000s and 2010s. But the sanctions proved ineffective — North Korea continued its programme, and Iran did not seek to build a bomb.
However, in recent years, especially after the start of the Ukrainian conflict in 2022, the taboo on discussing the use of nuclear weapons began to crumble. Russia has made it clear that in the event of a direct threat to its security, including through NATO military intervention, it may resort to nuclear weapons. At the same time, Moscow has not threatened to use them against Ukraine. The US and EU, in turn, started to actively speculate on the topic of the “Russian threat,” accompanied by both demonisation and genuine fear.
The turning point of summer 2025
In the summer of 2025, the taboo was finally broken. The US and Israel struck Iran’s nuclear facilities, accusing it of developing weapons of mass destruction — accusations rejected by both Iran and international observers. This set a precedent: two nuclear powers bombed the nuclear facilities of a non-nuclear state — and got away with it.
It is now clear that even a peaceful nuclear programme can be interpreted as a threat and serve as a pretext for attack. Moreover, such actions can be justified by an arbitrary definition of “villain” and “victim.” Iran without nuclear weapons became a “threat,” while Israel, with its nuclear arsenal, became a “victim.”
This is not absurd, but a new nuclear reality. Iran has been left with virtually no choice — now, possessing a nuclear bomb is a matter of survival for it. However, even if Tehran does not manage to implement its programme, the nuclear race has already begun. More and more states will seek to possess an atomic bomb as a guarantee of sovereignty.
Likelihood of nuclear weapons using now
The world is undergoing a profound transformation. The EU-US centric order that has existed for the past years is collapsing. In this situation, the proliferation of nuclear weapons is becoming a natural and irreversible process. Moreover, an even more alarming prospect looms on the horizon: when access to nuclear weapons is gained not only by states, but also by non-state actors — insurgents, terrorists, radical movements.
Nevertheless, in the short term, the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used remains low. The US and Russia will not use them against each other because the fear of mutual destruction remains a reliable deterrent. The same applies to Russia’s relations with NATO, China with Taiwan, India with Pakistan, and even North Korea — it uses its weapons as a means of deterring US intervention, not for attack.
Israel is the exception but even it has not used the atomic bomb against Gaza or Iran. In the first case, because of the risk to its own population and the impossibility of using contaminated territory; in the second, because of potential international isolation.
Thus, despite growing instability, the use of nuclear weapons remains unlikely. However, a new phase of the nuclear age with the expansion of the nuclear club and the erosion of previous restrictions has already begun. By 2030–2040, we can expect the emergence of new nuclear powers, which will complicate the international situation.
If the transition to a multipolar world happens quickly, new players will seek nuclear weapons not as a means of attack, but as a guarantee of security. And then nuclear deterrence will retain its key role in a new, more diverse but less hierarchical world order.
Japan between memory and strategy
As the only country to have survived nuclear attacks, Japan has been advocating nuclear disarmament for decades. “Nuclear allergy” the rejection of the very idea of possessing atomic weapons has become part of its national identity.
Every year on August 6 and 9, commemorative events are held and public movements for peace are active. In 2024, the organisation Nihon Hidankyo, representing the victims of the atomic bombings, the hibakusha, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
However, these calls for disarmament are combined with a de facto reliance on the US nuclear umbrella. This duality undermines the consistency of Japan’s position. Despite the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there are no sustained anti-American sentiments in Japan.
Officials rarely mention the US as the country that dropped the bombs in their commemorative speeches. History textbooks do not emphasise specific perpetrators. For example, a 2010 survey showed that only 23% of Japanese outside Hiroshima and Nagasaki knew the exact dates of the bombings.
Today, the hibakusha are the last living bearers of historical memory. However, their numbers are dwindling every year (less than 100,000, with an average age of 86), and with their passing, the direct memory of the tragedy is being erased.
In the US, perceptions of the events of August 1945 remain controversial: about 35% of Americans still consider the bombings justified, while 31% do not. Despite this, there is still no sense of guilt.
In 2016, Barack Obama became the first sitting American president to visit Hiroshima — a symbolic gesture, but without an apology. And in 2025, Donald Trump caused outrage in Japan by comparing strikes on Iran to atomic bombings as a way to “end the war.” Representatives of Nihon Hidankyo and city mayors protested, but the Japanese government refrained from making any official comments.
Thus, historical memory is giving way to strategic interests. Japan is maintaining its alliance with the US and is increasingly discussing the possibility of deploying American nuclear weapons or even joint ownership of them.
THE ARTICLE IS THE AUTHOR’S SPECULATION AND DOES NOT CLAIM TO BE TRUE. ALL INFORMATION IS TAKEN FROM OPEN SOURCES. THE AUTHOR DOES NOT IMPOSE ANY SUBJECTIVE CONCLUSIONS.
Xiao Duong for Head-Post.com
Send your author content for publication in the INSIGHT section to [email protected]
