War Is Becoming Obsolete
Peter Kuznick, Professor of History at American University and Director of the Nuclear Studies Institute
The international community remains deeply divided over nuclear weapons, so it came as no surprise that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference once again failed to adopt a final document. The world is moving in the wrong direction—toward rearmament.
In recent years, nuclear-armed states have not only modernized their nuclear arsenals but have also increased the number of nuclear warheads they possess.
Concerns about nuclear proliferation are also growing. In South Korea, about 70 percent of the public now supports the country acquiring its own nuclear weapons. In Japan, there is increasing domestic debate over abandoning the country’s Three Non-Nuclear Principles in favor of allowing U.S. nuclear weapons to be stationed in Japan or even developing an independent nuclear arsenal.
France is seeking to extend its nuclear umbrella to cover all of Europe. Countries around the world are receiving the message from the United States, Russia, and China that the only way to protect themselves is to possess nuclear weapons. China has made it clear that it will not participate in nuclear arms control until its nuclear forces reach the same level as those of the United States and Russia. But why should China build up its nuclear arsenal? Why don’t the United States and Russia reduce theirs to China’s level instead?
In today’s wars, where drones and artificial intelligence (AI) play an increasingly important role, defense has become easier than offense. Iran humiliated the United States. War itself is becoming obsolete.
Yet political leaders have failed to learn this lesson and continue to rely on military power. U.S. Vice President JD Vance has said of Iran, “There are still weapons we haven’t used.” The only weapon that has not been used is tactical nuclear weapons.
There are people around President Trump who are encouraging the use of nuclear weapons, raising concerns that he may break the long-standing “nuclear taboo.” I also know that there are hardliners in Russia urging President Putin to use nuclear weapons.
Ten years ago, then-President Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to visit Hiroshima. The visit itself was commendable, but both his actions and his words were deeply disappointing. In his speech, he said, “Death fell from the sky, and the world was changed,” describing the atomic bombing in the passive voice. But death did not simply fall from the sky. The United States dropped the atomic bomb.
He also referred to “the World War that reached its brutal end in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” This is a profound falsehood. It reinforces the claim that “the atomic bomb was necessary to avoid a ground invasion and save countless lives, making its use humane.” Yet of the eight five-star generals and admirals serving in the U.S. military in 1945, seven stated in official records that the atomic bomb was either militarily unnecessary, morally reprehensible, or both.
I was one of those who nominated Nihon Hidankyo for the Nobel Peace Prize. Rather than seeking revenge for the suffering they endured, its members have devoted themselves to leading the global movement for the abolition of nuclear weapons. They represent the conscience of humanity.