Why are we commemorating Hiroshima's 80th anniversary with new nuclear weapons?

Independent

7 days ago

Three-year-old Shinichi Tetsutani was riding his beloved yellow tricycle when the atom bomb exploded over Hiroshima. He died that night from his injuries. His heartbroken father, Nobuo, buried Shinichi's body in the backyard, along with the tricycle, so that he could ride it even after his death.
You can still see the skeletal form of that tricycle today, preserved now in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, after Nobuo decided to place Shinichi's remains in the family grave. It is just one of many haunting reminders of the day that normal life came to an instantaneous halt – incinerated, devastated – 80 years ago this week. I visited this week while attending the commemorations in my role as vice president of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
Despite all we know about the events which unfolded, first in Hiroshima on 6 August 1945 and three days later in Nagasaki, nothing prepares you for the horror of being in this city, hearing stories directly from the few remaining first-generation Hibakusha – the survivors of the atomic bombs who for years have suffered from radiation sickness, psychological trauma, stigma and discrimination.
It is a horror that is compounded by the fact that the world's nine declared nuclear-armed states have amassed a firepower equivalent to 145,000 Hiroshima bombs – enough to destroy the world many times over.
But that, apparently, is not enough. In the UK, Sir Keir Starmer recently announced plans to spend an additional £15bn on developing submarine-launched nuclear warheads, as well as the purchase of F-35A fighters to enable the UK to re-introduce air-launched nuclear weapons. It brings the prospect of nuclear war measurably closer – all in the name of making Britain, in his words, 'a battle-ready, armour-clad nation'.
And all, it might be added, in breach of our international obligations under Article Six of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which commits nuclear states to pursue 'good-faith negotiations on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament.' Successive UK governments have simply ignored this legal duty. Theresa May seemingly couldn't even be bothered to send a minister to the UN talks back in 2017, which sought to negotiate what became the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. It entered into force in 2021 and, with over 90 signatories, is now supported by almost half the world's nations.
It's hard to see what moral authority Starmer can think he has to try to prevent countries like Iran from pursuing their nuclear ambitions while he upgrades our own. If he believes nuclear weapons are essential to the UK's security, shouldn't the logic be that all countries have a right to seek their own in the same way? And does Starmer believe the world would be safer if they did?
Starmer has justified his obscene raid on the international aid budget to fund his nuclear weapons spending spree on the grounds that, 'to deter conflict', the UK must be 'ready to fight and win'. Consider that flawed theory of deterrence, which is entirely unproven, nor can it be proven. In logic, one cannot prove a negative – that doing something causes something else not to happen. That a nuclear attack has not taken place could be down to a range of other factors, or simply of exceptional good fortune – so far, at least. Indeed, many military experts themselves argue that the possession of nuclear weapons makes us far less safe, primarily because their very existence increases the likelihood that they'll be used, contributes to the volume of nuclear material circulating the world, and exacerbates the risks of mistakes and miscalculations.
This summer's Strategic Defence Review has urged the government to run a campaign to convince people of the 'necessity' of a growing nuclear arsenal – a recommendation that it has accepted. If those of us who find such a proposal both morally repugnant and militarily reckless are to have any success in challenging their manoeuvres, then we need to get far more serious about promoting a far-reaching citizens' engagement and public education campaign, which sets out the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons.
Recent polling from More in Common suggests the door is already open with young people: those between the ages of 18 and 24 already believe nuclear conflict is the greatest threat to Britain.
There's a chilling irony in that the same government that is now planning its glossy new pro-nuclear ad campaign is simultaneously trying to shut down greater examination of the impacts of those same nuclear weapons. Shockingly, the UK was one of just three countries to vote against the creation of a UN scientific panel on the effects of nuclear war – a panel which would update our knowledge, including the latest horrific findings about the consequences of a planet-wide deep freeze precipitated by a full scale nuclear war that have been published in a number of scientific journals, and which are set out in terrifying detail by in his recent book, Six Minutes to Winter.
Not everyone has the privilege of visiting Hiroshima. But at the very least, it's surely the responsibility of all of us who seek a safer, more secure future to do everything else we can to ensure everyone is aware of what Keir Starmer's government would prefer we didn't know.