Historical Context: What Happened in 1945
- On August 6, 1945, the U.S. dropped a uranium-based atomic bomb (“Little Boy”) on Hiroshima at 8:15 a.m., killing approx. 70,000 people instantly.
- By the end of 1945, at least 70,000 more had died due to injuries and radiation sickness.
- On August 9, a second bomb (“Fat Man”), plutonium-based, was dropped on Nagasaki, killing 40,000 on the first day.
- Total fatalities from the two bombings by end of 1945: approx. 1,40,000 to 2,00,000.
Relevance : GS 1(World History )
Who Are the Hibakusha?
- “Hibakusha” means “bomb–affected people” — survivors of the atomic bombings.
- Their testimonies helped build the global moral and ethical case against nuclear weapons.
- They faced official suppression initially during American occupation of Japan — effects of the bombs were denied or downplayed.
- U.S. Brig. Gen. Thomas Farrell falsely declared that those affected had all died and there were “no continuing effects.”
- Relief centers were shut; 50,000 more died by year-end without understanding the cause.
Castle Bravo & the Turning Point in Nuclear Awareness
- In 1954, a U.S. hydrogen bomb test (Castle Bravo) in the Marshall Islands went awry — twice as powerful as expected.
- A Japanese fishing boat, Fukuryu Maru, was 86 miles from ground zero and got covered in radioactive fallout.
- All crew members fell sick from acute radiation — bringing public attention to the delayed and invisible dangers of radiation.
- This incident became a critical moment in linking radiation sickness with nuclear weapons in Japan’s public consciousness.
Rise of Anti-Nuclear Movements
- Survivors organized under Nihon Hidankyo (Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations) in 1956.
- They began global campaigns to educate the world about the humanitarian impact of nuclear warfare.
- After decades of advocacy, Nihon Hidankyo was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2024 — 70 years after the Castle Bravo fallout incident.
The Norm of Non-Use: Definition & Reality
- Despite the expansion of nuclear powers (from 1 in 1945 to 9 today), no nuclear weapon has been used in warfare since 1945.
- This “norm of non-use” is not enshrined in law but is a powerful informal norm shaped by:
▸ Humanitarian narratives (Hibakusha testimonies)
▸ Deterrence theory (Mutual Assured Destruction) - Legal instruments regulate testing and proliferation — not use:
▸ NPT (1968): Prevents spread of nuclear weapons; encourages disarmament “in good faith.”
▸ CTBT (1996): Bans all nuclear explosive testing.
▸ Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (2017): Prohibits use but not signed by any nuclear-armed state. - The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1996 ruled that nuclear use is generally contrary to international law, though it did not declare an outright ban.
The Changing Nature of Nuclear Threats
- Cold War arsenals were large and centralized; today’s arsenals are smaller but more sophisticated.
- Shift towards tactical, “useable” nuclear weapons — designed for battlefield use, not large-scale deterrence.
- Modernization trends include:
▸ Smaller-yield warheads
▸ Precision delivery systems
▸ Faster, more responsive command and control systems
Erosion of Norms in Today’s Conflicts
- Russia’s nuclear threats during the Ukraine conflict have undermined the nuclear taboo.
- During India’s Operation Sindoor (2025), PM Modi declared India would not tolerate nuclear blackmail — indicating nuclear signaling in regional conflicts.
- The line between conventional and nuclear conflict is increasingly blurred, heightening the risk of escalation or miscalculation.
Why This Matters Today: Key Takeaways
- The norm of non-use has held for 80 years, but is under strain from:
▸ Rising geopolitical tensions (Russia–NATO, Indo–Pak, U.S.–China)
▸ Modernization and evolving nuclear doctrines
▸ Erosion of global arms control treaties and norms - Over 13,000 nuclear weapons still exist globally (as of 2023), with 90% held by the U.S. and Russia.
- Public awareness is fading — often revived only by accidents like Castle Bravo or active conflict threats.
- Complacency is dangerous: even “limited” nuclear use would have devastating humanitarian and ecological consequences.
Moral vs. Strategic Logic
- Moral argument: Led by Hibakusha and peace activists emphasizing human cost and long-term radiation effects.
- Strategic argument: Based on deterrence theory — fear of retaliation prevents use.
- It remains contested which factor (ethics or deterrence) has been more effective in preserving the norm of non-use.
Final Reflection
- Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not just acts of war — they marked the beginning of an age of existential danger.
- Survivors’ testimonies, once silenced, are vital reminders of the risks.
- As nuclear rhetoric and modernization increase, reaffirming and reinforcing the nuclear taboo is crucial for global security and human survival.
