Was Hiroshima a show of strength meant to shape future order?

Indian Express

5 days ago

Every year on August 6, people across the world remember Hiroshima. Ceremonies are held and flowers are laid. The day passes with speeches, moments of silence, and renewed calls for a world without nuclear weapons. But beneath these rituals lies a deeper discomfort that many prefer not to talk about. Hiroshima was not only a tragedy. It was also a turning point. It showed what power looks like when it is stripped of all limits.
The bombing of Hiroshima, followed by Nagasaki three days later, ended the Second World War. But it also marked the start of a new way of thinking about war, peace, and the use of force. Since that week in August 1945, the world has not been the same. Many say the nuclear age brought stability. Others believe it created a world living on the edge.
Eighty years have passed. But the questions that the bombings raised have not disappeared. Were they necessary to end the war? Was it a military decision or a political one? What did Hiroshima and Nagasaki really mean for the future of international politics? These are not just moral questions. They are political ones.
Much has been written about whether the bombings were necessary. At the time, American leaders said they were needed to force Japan to surrender. Without them, they argued, the war would have dragged on. A land invasion of Japan would have cost thousands of lives. The bomb, they said, saved more lives than it took.
But others have questioned this view. Some Japanese cities had already been destroyed by firebombing. Japan's military position was weak. Its navy and air force had been largely wiped out. And some in Japan's leadership were already discussing ways to end the war.
So why was the bomb used? One reason lies outside the battlefield. In 1945, the United States was already thinking ahead to the post-war world. The Soviet Union was both an ally and a rival. Dropping the bomb showed not just Japan, but the world, what the United States was capable of. It was a show of strength meant to shape the future order. Power was not only used to end the war. It was used to define who would lead in the years that followed.
From the realist perspective in international relations, war is not only about defeating the enemy. It is also a way to send signals of strength. This idea forms the basis of deterrence.
Critics argue that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has allowed a small group of countries to decide who can possess the bomb and who cannot. This unequal treatment prompted many to call the current arrangement 'nuclear apartheid'.
Constructivism tells us that power in international politics does not operate only through weapons, armies, and threats. It also works through ideas – how states understand themselves and others, and what they believe to be right or necessary.
From a realist perspective, war is not only about defeating the enemy. It is also a way to send signals of strength. This idea forms the basis of deterrence. The logic is straightforward. If you have the power to destroy your enemy, they will hesitate to attack. If both sides could destroy each other, neither would risk starting a war. This logic of mutual destruction held for a time. But this kind of peace was built on fear. It depended on leaders always acting rationally. It left little room for error.
This thinking shaped the Cold War, drove the nuclear arms race, and continues to influence how countries think about nuclear weapons today. But deterrence comes at a cost. It relies on the threat of mass destruction. It demands that states be willing to kill millions to avoid war. Some realists accept this as necessary. Others see it as morally bankrupt. Yet it still defines the logic of nuclear policy.
In the decades after Hiroshima, the nuclear order took shape. The United States, Soviet Union, Britain, France, and China became the five officially recognised nuclear powers. Others like India, Pakistan, and North Korea built their arsenals outside this system. Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons, though it has never officially confirmed this.
Liberal thinkers argue that rules, institutions, and cooperation can limit the use of force. In the post-war years, efforts were made to build such a system. The United Nations was established, and treaties like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) were introduced to regulate nuclear weapons. Signed in 1968, the NPT sought to manage the growing divide between the nuclear and non-nuclear states.
Under the treaty, countries that already had nuclear weapons were expected to disarm gradually. In return, others would refrain from developing them. The treaty also promised access to peaceful nuclear technology. But critics argue that the NPT has preserved the status quo. It has allowed a small group of countries to decide who can possess the bomb and who cannot.
These arrangements, though, have helped prevent the usage of nuclear weapons again. But the system is full of contradictions. The promise of disarmament was never fully kept. The nuclear powers did not make serious efforts to disarm. Instead, they upgraded their arsenals with more precise warheads, faster missiles, and better control systems.
At the same time, countries without nuclear weapons were expected to follow rules made by those who already have them. If they resisted, they faced diplomatic pressure, sanctions, or even threats of war. Some were accused of violating the rules even when no evidence existed. The system was never based on fairness. This unequal treatment is why many call the current arrangement 'nuclear apartheid'. It requires the world to accept an unequal system, where a few countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons, while others are not.
Powerful states claim their weapons are safe because they are in 'responsible hands'. But what makes one country more responsible than another? Who decides that? For many in the Global South, these are not new questions. They have watched Western powers expand and modernise their arsenals while warning others not to build theirs. They have seen how treaties are used to restrict some, while others operate with few constraints. The message is clear – the rules are not the same for everyone.
Understanding Hiroshima requires more than looking at military strategy. It also requires asking how identity and perception shape the choices states make. This is where constructivist thinking becomes useful. Constructivism tells us that power in international politics does not operate only through weapons, armies, and threats. It also works through ideas – how states understand themselves, how they view others, and what they believe to be right or necessary.
This perspective helps us ask a deeper question: why was it possible to bomb Hiroshima? One reason may be that in American wartime propaganda, Japan was often portrayed as alien, cruel, and even less than human. Within such a framing, the bombing could be presented as a necessary act. Scholars have pointed out that this way of thinking drew on older colonial ideas, where the East was imagined as fundamentally different and dangerous – a mindset shaped by what Edward Said called 'Orientalism'.
Why was the same decision not made about the other enemy, Germany? We cannot be sure of the answer. But the question itself tells us something important. In international politics, decisions are not made in a vacuum. They are filtered through narratives of civilisation and of 'us' and 'them'.
Constructivist thinking helps us see that war is not only a clash of interests. It is also a clash of identities. Who is seen as threatening? Who is seen as civilised? Who is seen as worthy of protection, and whose suffering can be more easily ignored? These ideas influence not just military choices but also how events are remembered later.
This is why memory itself becomes political. In Japan, Hiroshima is remembered as an act of cruelty and trauma. In many parts of the world, it is seen as the tragic cost of ending the war. In US policy circles, it is often defended as a strategic necessity. The same event carries different meanings in different places because memory is shaped by identity, power, and politics.
Even eight decades later, Hiroshima is not just about the past. It continues to shape how we think about the future – about war, peace, and power. The world is more connected now. But it is also more divided. The world today feels increasingly unstable. Old rivalries are resurfacing. New technologies are making weapons faster, more precise, and harder to defend against. Some countries have openly threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons in regional conflicts.
The idea that nuclear weapons must never be used again – the so-called norm of non-use – is under growing strain. Hiroshima was meant to stand as a permanent warning. But the question now is whether that warning still matters.
The strategic community often talks about how the world avoided nuclear war during the Cold War. But avoiding disaster is not the same as building peace. The fact that nuclear bombs have not been used again does not mean the world is safe. It only means we have been lucky. We are often told that nuclear weapons have kept the peace. But this peace is built on fear, not trust. And peace built on fear is always fragile. Lasting peace cannot be negotiated by force; it has to be built on trust and a commitment to shared security.
We cannot undo what happened in August 1945. But we can choose how to remember it. Not as a triumph of science or strategy, but as a reminder of how easy it is to cross a line – and how hard it is to come back once we do.
In many parts of the world, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is seen as the tragic cost of ending the war. However, in US policy circles, it is often defended as a strategic necessity. Comment.
Liberal thinkers argue that rules, institutions, and cooperation can limit the use of force. Discuss the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) from the perspective of Liberal Institutionalism.
Constructivism argues that power in international politics also works through ideas – how states understand themselves, how they view others, and what they believe to be right or necessary. How do you think constructivist thinking explains the bombing of Hiroshima?
Do you think that the bombing of Hiroshima also marked the start of a new way of thinking about war, peace, and the use of force?
(The author is a Professor at MMAJ Academy of International Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.)
Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with [e-mail].
Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.
Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.