Shockingly, it is estimated that 9,583 “active” nuclear warheads are ready to be used or deployed at any moment around the world.

Seventy-nine years after the catastrophic atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, “nuclear arms expansion is in progress in the world,” warns the Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition at Nagasaki University, whose estimate of the number of operational warheads opened this editorial.

Although the total number of nuclear warheads, including those awaiting dismantlement due to obsolescence, has been in a steady decline for over a decade, the number of ones that are ready for use has been on the rise since 2018, posting an increase of more than 300 during the period.

FROM DISARMAMENT TO NUCLEAR BUILDUP

The nuclear powers, which bear the awesome responsibility to reduce their nuclear arsenals, are mainly to blame for the heightened risk of nuclear warfare. This is the deplorable reality.

When asked recently about the risk of nuclear war, Russian President Vladimir Putin did not rule out the possibility, particularly in the context of his country’s invasion of Ukraine.

“For some reason, the West believes that Russia will never use it (a nuclear weapon),” he said provocatively.

China has been ramping up its nuclear capabilities at a frantic pace, doubling its “active” warheads from 240 in 2018 to 500.

The United States is also countering China’s nuclear expansion. President Joe Biden decided not to include his longtime preferred policy of “no first use” of nuclear weapons in the administration’s 2022 Nuclear Posture Review.

National Security Council senior official Pranay Vaddi stated in June this year, “We may reach a point in the coming years where an increase from current deployed numbers is required.”

Nuclear-armed nations are racing to develop and deploy missiles, which are a means of delivering nuclear warheads, with no effective check on such activities.

As mutual distrust and tensions rise, the risks of mistakes and miscalculations increase. Pervasive misinformation and the introduction of AI (artificial intelligence), which humans cannot fully control, add to the uncertainty surrounding the risk of nuclear warfare.

This spring, it was reported that U.S. Republican Rep. Tim Walberg, while arguing against U.S. humanitarian aid into Gaza, said, “It should be like Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Get it over quick.” His remarks sounded as if he was suggesting the use of nuclear arms to end the conflict in Gaza.

If the “lid of reason” to prevent the use of nuclear weapons, which must never happen, is coming off, the world is facing a crisis.

Geopolitical tensions and mistrust have raised “the risk of nuclear warfare to its highest point in decades,” U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said. His words encapsulate the sense of crisis that must be shared worldwide.

UNRAVELING ‘NUCLEAR DETERRENCE’

Nuclear-armed states and those protected under their “nuclear umbrella” have justified the possession of nuclear forces with the “nuclear deterrence theory,” which essentially means deterring the enemy from attacks by owning nuclear arms.

However, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has also exposed the pitfalls of this theory. The Putin regime has used nuclear weapons as a “tool” to prevent the international community from stopping its illegal aggression.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) allows only five countries--the United States, Russia, Britain, France, and China--to possess nuclear weapons. This principle is designed to prevent further proliferation of nuclear arms and to ensure progress toward nuclear disarmament.

However, the nuclear powers have failed to fulfill their obligations under the treaty. There is no doubt that the NPT regime, based on the sincerity and reason of the nuclear powers, has fundamental flaws.

Once nuclear weapons are used, human survival itself is threatened. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which came into effect three years ago, was born out of a keen awareness of this colossal risk.

The treaty symbolizes the imperative of a transition from “national security” to “human security.” Now, more than ever, it is urgent for the world to reconsider the nuclear issue from a multi-faceted perspective of society, economy, environment, and human rights, not just military and security concerns, and take concrete actions based on this new perspective.

Amid an increasingly fraught global security environment, doubts are voiced about the effectiveness of advocating for a nuclear weapons ban.

However, about half of the U.N. member states have signed the nuclear ban treaty to date. The list includes many of the emerging and developing countries taking their place in the international community.

Akira Kawasaki, an International Steering Group member of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), says, “As trust in the NPT is collapsing, the nuclear ban treaty serves as a legal basis for not allowing nuclear weapons.”

Strengthening the bulwark against the nuclear crisis is urgently needed. Signatory states and civil society should call for participation in the nuclear ban treaty to complement the increasingly frazzled NPT regime.

JAPAN’S RESPONSIBILITY

Last year, the Kishida administration, which upholds the vision of “a world without nuclear weapons,” hosted the Group of Seven summit in Hiroshima. However, the conference produced no significant results.

On the contrary, under Prime Minister Fumio Kishida the administration has embraced the idea of strengthening “extended deterrence” based on the full range of U.S. military capabilities, including the nuclear umbrella. The move risks accelerating the nuclear arms race in Asia.

Japan should explain the horrors of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the nuclear powers and promote disarmament diplomacy.

Assisting victims of nuclear tests and repairing contaminated environments are also important missions of the nuclear ban treaty. Contributions from Japan, which has related expertise, are expected.

At a minimum, Tokyo should participate in meetings of state parties to the treaty as an observer, fulfilling its responsibility as the only nation to have experienced atomic warfare.

This year marks 70 years since the U.S. thermonuclear weapon test at Bikini Atoll, in which a Japanese fishing boat was also contaminated by nuclear fallout, drawing renewed attention to the nuclear damage that has remained to this day.

Japan’s younger generation is also expanding solidarity with the global anti-nuclear movement.

Hideo Asano, a 27-year-old member of the secretariat of the Japan Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, which was launched in April, says, “We are facing the questions of what kind of future we want to create, what choices we have to make to achieve that.”

We are eager to see all generations pursue the answers to these questions in a concerted effort.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Aug. 6