For the first time in 80 years, nuclear war is a real possibility
Dr. Iqbal Survé argues that for the first time since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the threat of nuclear war is no longer hypothetical but dangerously real and humanity is alarmingly close to repeating history.
Image: Supplied
Eighty years ago, the world witnessed the devastating conclusion of World War II with the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The atomic age was born in tragedy, etched permanently into the conscience of humanity. Today, we face a chilling reality: for the first time since those horrific events, the threat of nuclear war is no longer theoretical. It is real, it is present, and it is dangerously close.
The visuals of mushroom clouds rising over Japanese cities remain one of the most harrowing symbols of human destruction. Those bombs ended a war but launched a new era of fear, a world living under the shadow of annihilation. Yet, here we are again, closer than ever to that precipice.
In Across the River and Into the Trees, Ernest Hemingway wrote that war is fought not for peace, but for profit, for corporations, not for people. That truth echoes loudly today.
Modern conflicts are sustained not by necessity, but by greed. Armaments industries thrive, politicians posture and the media often becomes complicit, glorifying war while ignoring its cost. War, I believe, has no victors. Only victims.
Today's nuclear arsenal makes Hiroshima look primitive. Modern warheads have unprecedented destructive power and delivery speed. A single strike can obliterate millions.
Even more concerning is the advent of 'tactical' nuclear weapons — smaller bombs with concentrated impact, falsely marketed as controlled warfare. Their use is no longer speculative; whispers of their deployment already circulate in recent Middle Eastern conflicts.
We must distinguish between nuclear power and nuclear capability. The latter is a growing global risk. Beyond the traditional superpowers, the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France, we now face a widening circle of states with nuclear ambitions or stockpiles.
Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India, North Korea, and others pose escalating regional risks.
From the Kashmir border to the Gaza Strip, from the Taiwan Strait to the South China Sea, we are sitting atop pressure points that could ignite instantaneously. Unlike conventional wars that escalate slowly, nuclear conflict requires only one command, one perception of existential threat, and one miscalculation.
The most probable nuclear flashpoint today lies between India and Pakistan. Rooted in history, religion, and increasingly, resource disputes over the Indus River, the conditions are combustible. Israel and Iran remain a second front, driven by existential anxieties and a dangerous imbalance of military capability.
Russia and NATO, North Korea and South Korea, Taiwan and the PRC, and even the US and China, each theatre carries its own fuse, waiting for a spark.
But the greatest danger is not weaponry. It is dehumanisation. The ability to reduce an entire people to less than human, by race, religion, or geopolitics, creates the moral detachment needed to justify nuclear action. Once we stop seeing each other as equals in humanity, pressing the button becomes thinkable.
South Africa, my country, offers both a warning and an example. During apartheid, the regime developed nuclear weapons, not for global war, but to potentially use against its own people. Black South Africans were confined to 'homelands' that could be wiped out if necessary.
What does that tell us about how nuclear weapons intersect with racism, fear, and power?
Thankfully, under Nelson Mandela's leadership, South Africa became the first country to dismantle its nuclear arsenal voluntarily. It was a choice for peace, a stand for humanity. The world needs another Mandela moment.
Today, leaders must choose dialogue over destruction. We need courage, not arrogance. We must listen, not lecture. We must restore the values of balance, mutual respect, and shared humanity. And above all, we must end the lie that war, especially nuclear war, is ever a solution.
Peace is not weakness. It is wisdom. It is the recognition that our shared future is too precious to risk for political gain, economic profit, or nationalist ego. Religious leaders, intellectuals, civil society, and especially the media must stop being silent spectators.
They must speak, loudly and clearly, against the rhetoric of war. As someone who has had the privilege of engaging with global leaders, including recently with President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, I know that diplomacy, when rooted in honesty and humility, can defuse even the most dangerous situations. We must make room for such diplomacy again.
While nuclear war is a possibility, it is not inevitable. But time is not our ally. We must act with clarity, urgency, and collective will.
Let us not sleepwalk into catastrophe. Let us instead awaken to the truth: that peace, not war, is the only legacy worth leaving behind.
By Dr. Iqbal Survé
Chairman of Sekunjalo Group
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


eNCA
a day ago
- eNCA
Russia, Ukraine swap first prisoners in large-scale exchange
Russia and Ukraine on Monday swapped a first group of captured soldiers -- part of an agreement reached during peace talks that appeared to be in doubt over the weekend. The deal to exchange prisoners of war and repatriate the bodies of killed fighters was the only concrete agreement reached at the talks, which have failed to lead to a breakthrough towards ending the three-year war. Progress has stalled. Russia has issued tough conditions for halting its invasion and has repeatedly rejected calls for an unconditional ceasefire. "Today an exchange began, which will continue in several stages over the coming days," Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on social media. He posted images of soldiers draped in Ukrainian flags, cheering and hugging. "Among those we are bringing back now are the wounded, the severely wounded, and those under the age of 25," he added. Russia's defence ministry also confirmed the swap was part of "agreements reached on 2 June in Istanbul". Neither side said how many prisoners were released. After the talks in Istanbul, both said it would involve more than 1,000 captured soldiers, making it the largest exchange of the three-year war. The swap itself had appeared in jeopardy over the weekend, when Moscow and Kyiv traded accusations of delaying and thwarting the planned exchange. Zelensky accused Russia on Sunday of playing a "dirty, political game" and of not sticking to the agreed parameters -- to free all captured soldiers that are sick, wounded or under the age of 25. Russia said Kyiv was refusing to take back bodies of dead soldiers, 1,200 of which it said were waiting in refrigerated trucks near the border. - Talks 'pointless' - Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine triggered the biggest European conflict since World War II, forced millions to flee their homes and decimated much of eastern and southern Ukraine. Pressed by US President Donald Trump to end the conflict, the two sides have opened direct negotiations for the first time in more than three years in search of an agreement. But they appear as far apart as ever from an agreement. In Istanbul on June 2, Russia demanded Ukraine withdraw its forces from areas still under its control, recognise Moscow's annexation of five Ukrainian regions and renounce all Western military support. Kyiv is seeking a full ceasefire and a summit between Zelensky, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Trump to try to break the impasse. While welcoming POW exchanges, Zelensky said last week said it was "pointless" to hold further talks with the current Russian delegation -- who he previously dismissed as "empty heads" -- since they could not agree to a ceasefire. Meanwhile fighting on the front lines and in the skies has intensified. Russia said on Sunday its troops had crossed into Ukraine's industrial Dnipropetrovsk region for the first time in its campaign -- a potentially key advance given that Moscow has not put forward a territorial claim to that region. war And Moscow launched a record 479 drones at Ukraine overnight, Kyiv's air force said on Monday. The Ukrainian mayor of the western city of Rivne, Oleksandr Tretyak, called it "the largest attack" on the region since the start of the war. Russia said it had targeted an airfield near the village of Dubno in the Rivne region. It called the attack "one of the retaliatory strikes" for a brazen drone attack by Ukraine on June 1 against Russian military jets stationed at air bases thousands of kilometres (miles) behind the front line. Kyiv also claimed responsibility for an attack on a Russian electronics factory overnight, saying it manufactured parts for drones.

TimesLIVE
a day ago
- TimesLIVE
Mashatile's overseas trips spark fury as costs soar to R8m
Deputy President Paul Mashatile has raked up close to R8m in expenditure on international trips since taking office in July 2024. This was revealed in a parliamentary response which showed that Mashatile visited countries like the UK, Ireland, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Japan, his latest trip. Mashatile's recent working visit to Japan cost more than R2.3m. The trip, which took place from March 16 to 19, was described by his office as strategically important, aimed at deepening political, economic and social ties between South Africa and Japan. The revelation came in response to a parliamentary question from ActionSA MP Lerato Mikateko Ngobeni, who requested a complete breakdown of all official travel undertaken by Mashatile since assuming office on July 3 2024. According to the presidency the Japan visit marked the first high-level engagement between South Africa and Japan in a decade. The trip coincided with the two countries celebrating 115 years of diplomatic relations and took place at a time when Japan remains South Africa's fourth-largest trading partner. The presidency also revealed that during the visit Mashatile and his delegation engaged Japanese political leaders, business executives and development institutions in an effort to attract investment and reinforce co-operation in key sectors. Among the highlights of the visit were meetings with Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and chief cabinet secretary Yoshihama Hayashi, a keynote address delivered at the UN University in Tokyo and a tour of the Isuzu Fujisawa plant, which has operations in South Africa. The deputy president also met with the Japan International Co-operation Agency (JICA) and participated in discussions with the Japan-AU Parliamentary Friendship League. Talks also took place with leading Japanese economic organisations including the Japan External Trade Organisation (JETRO), the Japan Organisation for Metals and Energy Security (JOGMEC), Keidanren, and the Association of the African Economy and Development in Japan Committee (AFRECO). These engagements focused on sectors such as manufacturing, energy, mining, agriculture and the automotive industry. Mashatile was accompanied by several ministers and deputy ministers, including minister of sport, arts and culture Gayton McKenzie; minister of agriculture John Steenhuisen; minister of higher education Dr Nobuhle Nkabane; minister of trade, industry and competition Parks Tau; deputy minister of international relations and co-operation Thandi Moraka and deputy minister of science and innovation Nomalungelo Gina.

IOL News
3 days ago
- IOL News
Europe's Left Must Unite to Oppose NATO's Rearmament and Austerity
U.S. Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth (left) and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in conversation ahead of the meeting of NATO defence ministers at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, on June 5, 2025. Image: AFP John Ross As Europe approaches NATO's 24–26 June summit in The Hague, its 750 million people face a decisive strategic choice that will affect their lives for years to come – and one with a far wider global impact. The policies implemented in Europe in recent years have been disastrous socially, economically, politically, and militarily. Europe is experiencing worsening social conditions, its largest war since 1945 in Ukraine, and the biggest rise of far-right authoritarian, racist, and xenophobic forces since the Nazis in the 1930s. The proposals to the NATO summit would worsen that situation. The key question is therefore whether Europe will continue down this destructive, disastrous path or adopt policies that offer a way out. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has proposed to the 32 NATO members that 'the NATO summit… aim for 3.5% hard military spending by 2032' – a 75% increase from the previous 2.0% GDP target. Trump calls for even higher military expenditure of 5% of GDP. Rutte opened the door to this by supporting a commitment to '1.5% related spending, such as infrastructure, cybersecurity and things like that. Also achievable by 2032'. The 3.5% plus 1.5% adds up to Trump's 5%. The social and political consequences of such a course are already clear. Europe's economies are nearly stagnant, with the EU's annual per capita GDP growth averaging less than 1% from 2007 to 2024. The IMF, somewhat optimistically, projects an increase to only 1.3% by 2030. With rising inequality and reductions in social spending due to austerity policies, hundreds of millions of people in Europe have already experienced stagnant or declining living standards. Diverting more resources into military spending, already being accompanied by social spending cuts to finance it, will worsen that situation further. The political consequences are also clear. Far-right and neo-fascist forces, exploiting the worsening conditions, which are caused by austerity measures and increased military spending, by demagogically blaming immigrants and ethnic and religious minorities, will gain further strength. The disastrous consequences for traditional left-wing and progressive parties supporting or enacting these rearmament and austerity policies, even before their support for the new NATO rearmament policies, are already known in major European countries. The SPD in Germany in 2025 saw its vote drop to 16%, the lowest since 1887. In the last elections at which they stood independently, the French Socialist Party gained only 6%. In Britain, the Labour Party, which already received one of its lowest votes since the 1930s at the last election, is now in the polls behind the far-right Reform Party. In contrast, left-wing parties that have opposed austerity and NATO policies – La France Insoumise in France, Die Linke in Germany, and the Belgian Workers Party – have maintained or significantly increased their support. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ This disastrous collapse suffered by traditional left-wing parties that have supported war and austerity is extremely dangerous in the context of the rise of far-right parties across Europe. The reason for the collapsing support for such parties is obvious. Such policies attack the population's living standards. If parties claiming to be on the left continue to support austerity and rearmament, this trend of decline will just continue. The only way out of this situation for both Europe's population and the left is a complete policy reversal to one that prioritises social progress and economic development. Following the end of the Cold War, Europe should have focused on fostering economic cooperation and minimising military tensions and expenditures. This would have created a balanced economic area, equivalent to the US, with a strong potential for growth by combining Western Europe's manufacturing and services with Russia's energy and raw materials. What was possible was shown in Asia by ASEAN, which, in a continent that had suffered the worst conflicts of the Cold War, the Korean and Vietnam wars, became the world's most rapidly growing economic region through a concentration on economic development and the absence of military blocs. But, because an economically cooperating Europe could have been a successful competitor to the United States, US administrations pursued a path to prevent it – primarily through NATO's eastward expansion, which was carried out in direct violation of US promises to then-Soviet Premier Gorbachev that NATO would not advance 'an inch' eastward after Germany's reunification. Instead, in 1999, 2004, 2009, 2017, and 2020, new countries were added to NATO, and the door was deliberately left open to admitting Ukraine, known to be a red line for Russia due to Ukraine's proximity to Russia and its position as a historical route for invasion. Numerous US experts on Eastern Europe opposed this, led by George Kennan, the original architect of US Cold War strategy, who warned NATO expansion would be 'the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era'. But their warnings were ignored, with results culminating in the Ukraine war. Now NATO demands rearmament and cuts in social protection to finance this war. NATO forces simultaneously expanded outside Europe to participate in wars in the Global South, Afghanistan and Libya, and set up numerous organisations and initiatives to prepare for intervention in the Global South – such as the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, the Strategic Direction-South HUB, the Liaison Office in Addis Ababa – and has begun to expand into the Pacific – with Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea attending every NATO summit since 2022. Such NATO expansion would involve Europe in even more conflicts and more calls for military expenditure. What is required is the complete opposite – priority to social progress and investment for economic growth. Both require more spending and are therefore directly contrary to a military build-up. Europe's need for social spending is obvious. But Europe's investment, the key to economic growth, has also collapsed. In the EU, investment, once depreciation (the wearing out of existing means of production) is taken into account, has halved from 7.4% of GDP in 2007 to only 3.5% on the latest data. International comparisons show this is enough only to generate 1% annual economic growth. Additionally, the US is now pressing for further policies harmful to Europe and its people. The US has already enormously damaged Europe by its conscious policy of cutting off Western Europe's source of cheap energy from Russia, achieved via the Ukraine war and the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipeline, which anyone who looks seriously at the matter knows was carried out by the US.