Eighty years on from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world should not forget the devastation wrought by nuclear weapons

The breakdown of nuclear diplomacy, misleading talk of ‘limited’ nuclear war and a lack of public awareness have produced a dangerously heightened risk.

Expert comment

Published 5 August 2025 — 4 minute READ

Image — Crows fly around the top of the Atomic Bomb Dome on the eve of the 80th anniversary of the atomic bomb attack in the Japanese city of Hiroshima on 5 August 2025. Photo by RICHARD A. BROOKS/AFP via Getty Images

Dr Marion Messmer

Director, International Security Programme

Georgia Cole

Research Associate, International Security Programme

This week marks the 80th anniversary of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US at the end of the Second World War, the first and to date only use of nuclear weapons. 

Almost a century on, it is easy to forget the devastating impact of the attacks. Between 110,000 to 210,000 people were killed by the bombs and their immediate aftermath. Entire communities were wiped out in seconds, while emergency services collapsed and hospitals were obliterated. Tens of thousands more died over the following decades from radiation-induced illnesses and cancer.

For survivors of the bombings, known as hibakusha, the psychological and social toll spanned generations. Many of them faced not only chronic health issues, but also social stigma and discrimination. Some survivors struggled to find employment or romantic partners due to physical disfigurement or fears of genetic illness. To this day, Japan remains the only country where long-term, intergenerational impacts of nuclear weapons have been studied in depth.

Resurgence of nuclear risk

Despite this painful legacy, today’s nuclear risks are dramatically increasing. Since the end of the Cold War, nuclear weapons have largely been treated as political tools of deterrence. They have been acknowledged to be too destructive to ever be used again. 

That posture is shifting. Some policymakers and military strategists are again entertaining the notion of ‘limited nuclear war’, or the battlefield use of ‘tactical nuclear weapons’ – less powerful and designed to be used in military situations. These terms are misleading. Many ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons are far more powerful than the bombs used in Japan. Their use would still result in mass civilian casualties, long-term radiation damage, and likely strategic escalation.

The resurgence of nuclear risk and proliferation is driven by overlapping factors. Moscow’s repeated nuclear threats since its invasion of Ukraine in 2022 are slowly chipping away at long-standing taboos against nuclear use. The conflict has also revived debates over whether other states need to develop nuclear deterrence capabilities as the ultimate security guarantee. 

Iran, under pressure from recent attacks by Israel and the US, has threatened to leave the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – the cornerstone of nuclear arms control. Domestic calls to progress its nuclear weapons program are increasing. North Korea continues to expand its arsenal while forging closer ties with Russia. India and Pakistan remain locked in a volatile rivalry, both armed with nuclear weapons and frequently skirmishing along contested borders. 

The NPT, long considered the cornerstone of non-proliferation, is under unprecedented strain.

These developments have greatly increased the risk of regional proliferation, with countries like Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Poland openly reconsidering their nuclear postures in light of eroding US security guarantees. Even within Japan, a country that until now has been a forceful voice against nuclear proliferation due to its devastating history, calls to develop a nuclear programme are emerging due to fears of China’s nuclear buildup.

Adding to the risk is technological change, which is outpacing diplomacy. The greater integration of artificial intelligence in decision-making and the growing importance of space-based platforms are transforming how nuclear weapons might be used – or misused. These developments change the strategic calculus, reduce the time leaders have to make life or death decisions, and increase the risk of accidental escalation.

Many ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons are far more powerful than the bombs used in Japan.

Against this context, the legal and diplomatic frameworks built over decades to manage nuclear risks are unravelling. The permanent members of the UN Security Council (P5), as well as India and Pakistan, are expanding and modernizing their nuclear arsenals. North Korea is also expanding its arsenal. 

The NPT, long considered the cornerstone of non-proliferation, is under unprecedented strain. The P5 have largely abandoned meaningful dialogue on arms control. Trust among major powers is scarce, bilateral and multilateral arms control negotiations have stalled, and multiple treaties have collapsed.

No silver bullet

The tools to address these growing risks have been on the table for a long time. Developing new risk reduction solutions has been a large strand of work in the NPT review process since at least 2017. There are also many known risk reducing and confidence building measures from the Cold War that could be updated and re-used. 

However, there is no silver bullet solution to address rising nuclear risks. The mix of leaders in power in key nuclear-armed states makes progress very difficult. President Putin seems to believe that Russia’s greater risk appetite gives it a strategic edge over other states. Reducing risks is therefore not in his interest. 

While President Trump has said he is in favour of reducing nuclear arsenals and has long wanted an opportunity to win a Nobel Peace Prize, he tends to favour negotiations and deals in which he can present the US as a ‘winner’. This approach is not conducive to a compromise solution. 

Whenever China has been approached about negotiations, President Xi deflects the need for negotiations by pointing to China’s no first use policy, and the fact that China’s nuclear arsenal is still far smaller than that of Russia and the US. 

The governments of these three countries, not to mention those of the several other nuclear states, do not seem to be united by any mutual interests in constraining their nuclear arsenals.

The importance of awareness

In addition to the greater level of complexity that is now present in nuclear diplomacy, the level of awareness of nuclear dangers in the general population has reduced significantly since the Cold War. 

Some of the progress on arms control in the Cold War was achieved because leaders were under significant pressure from their publics. For example, the Euromissile Crisis in the late 1970s and 1980s eventually led to a series of new arms control agreements. European leaders were motivated to reach a compromise in part due to pressure their publics exerted. 

We risk losing the memory of the devastation and long-term impact of the bombings.

Popular media can play a large role in increasing levels of awareness. In the 1970s and 1980s, there were many popular films and books about nuclear war, including The Day After and Threads. President Reagan reflected in his diary that The Day After left a lasting impact on him. It went as far as affecting his nuclear policy decisions, making him far more willing to engage in arms control negotiations. 

President Trump may be influenced by the same mixture of popular culture and debate as Reagan, having lived through the tense Cold War years. But more broadly, public awareness of the risks of nuclear war is dangerously low. 

The computer game series Fall Out, the film Oppenheimer and the non-fiction book Nuclear War: A Scenario have all recently reached large audiences. But the risks of nuclear war are not as present in the public imagination as they once were. That’s despite a potential nuclear war being just as deadly than at the height of the Cold War. While arsenals are smaller now, warhead stocks are still sufficient to do unthinkable damage. 

As survivors and eyewitnesses of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are getting older, we risk losing the memory of the devastation and long-term impact of the bombings. It is miraculous that nuclear weapons have not been used in the 80 years since those terrible events. We must ensure they are not used ever again.