© 2024 KGOU
News and Music for Oklahoma
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

Hiroshima, Nagasaki Anniversary A Reminder Of How Hard Nuclear Arms Control Still Is

The memorial in Nagasaki, Japan marking the location of ground zero of the August 9, 1945 nuclear attack.
Dean S. Pemberton
/
Wikimedia Commons
The memorial in Nagasaki, Japan marking the location of ground zero of the August 9, 1945 nuclear attack.

Seventy years ago Thursday, the United States dropped the first of two atomic bombs on the Empire of Japan – the opening salvo to the final days of World War II. The attack on Hiroshima, and Nagasaki three days later, killed as many as 200,000 people, and remain the only times nuclear weapons have ever been used against another nation.

Over the next five decades, the United States and the Soviet Union embarked on a long campaign of arms control and limiting access to nuclear weapons and material. But ironically, each superpower ended up with enough missiles and warheads to destroy the entire world dozens of times over.

“Those images of the bombs, or other images of bombs going off, they still resonate with us,” said University of Oklahoma College of International Studies assistant dean and World Views contributor Rebecca Cruise, who’s also an expert on international security studies. “And certainly worth noting and thinking about [are] the ramifications if something like this were ever to happen again.”

Both the United States and USSR signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that went into effect in 1970, and several other countries followed suit. But more than a dozen countries now have nuclear weapons. Even though the U.S. was in a cold war with the Soviet Union between 1945 and 1991, the two countries at least communicated. Having the weapons, or even threatening to develop them, serves as a kind of an international currency, legitimizing unstable states without the conventional resources to throw weight around on the world stage.

Watch President Obama’s Wednesday address at American University on the nuclear deal with Iran

“A North Korea. An Iran. We don’t know a lot about that leadership,” Cruise said. “We don’t know when they would use them, if they would use them, and it’s just that lack of confidence that they would abide by the international community’s code, or by these agreements, that concerns us.”

And Cruise says that threat gives Pyongyang and Tehran leverage to secure food aid for a starving population, or the lifting of crippling international sanctions.

“The fact that we have been able to come together, put together a deal with Iran, even though there’s a great deal of opposition in this country, particularly in Congress, there is a lot of support,” Cruise said. “The sanctions that were put on Iran were incredibly difficult and tough. And they have been celebrating the release of those sanctions in return for drawing down their nuclear weapons.”

 KGOU and World Views rely on voluntary contributions from readers and listeners to further its mission of public service with internationally focused reporting for Oklahoma and beyond. To contribute to our efforts, make your donation online, or contact our Membership department.

FULL TRANSCRIPT

SUZETTE GRILLOT, HOST: This is World Views, I'm Suzette Grillot. Rebecca Cruise, a couple of interesting topics this week, but let's start with the 70th anniversary of Hiroshima. The dropping of the atomic weapons 70 years ago to end the Second World War. 200,000 people died in Japan after the dropping of these bombs. Of course, the United States has been somewhat contrite. I mean, this is the only example of the use of nuclear weapons in the history of nuclear weapons. But this reminds us of how we then embarked on a long campaign, primarily the United States and the Soviet Union, to engage in discussions about arms control and limiting access to nuclear weapons and nuclear material. But the irony is we ended up with a whole bunch of it. So this anniversary this week, 70 years later, is a reminder of all kinds of things regarding weapons of mass destruction and other dangerous things around the world.

REBECCA CRUISE: Yeah, it really is, and I think those images of the bombs that you can see those, or other images of bombs going off, they still resonate with us. They are still able to elicit that real sense of fear. And of course the bombs that we dropped were very powerful, but certainly not nearly as powerful as the bombs that exist today. And there has been kind of this process of arms buildup, and then arms treaties, and then buildup, and then draw down. So you mentioned that this kind of started this off in the 1960s and going into effect in 1970 in particular was the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which really kind of got things going. But interestingly enough, we have countries today that are trying to get nuclear weapons. Korea did not sign this. Israel did not sign this. Some other countries did not sign this, but we continue to go back to that. And of course, in the height of the Cold War, the number of nuclear weapons that were available and in the arsenals, again, particularly the United States and the Soviet Union, were incredibly high. There are still nuclear weapons in both countries' hands, but significantly less than there were at that time. So some progress has been made, but on the other hand, it's still a very lasting concern. And certainly worth noting and thinking about the ramifications if something like this were to happen again.

GRILLOT: Well, I think we can't help but have a discussion, it seems to me. I mean, you mentioned North Korea, you mention Israel. We're going to talk about Iran here in a second. But we have these concerns, obviously, about weapons of mass destruction. About nuclear weapons in particular. These are, as you alluded to, very, very mass destructive weapons. Nothing like what happened in Nagasaki and Hiroshima all those years ago. But is it really the weapon itself, or is it who owns it? Who possesses it. Who might use it. Because obviously we don't trust the North Koreans. We're concerned about them. We don't want them to have nuclear weapons. Again, we're going to talk about Iran in a second, but we don't want them to have them. Israel - nobody's breathing down Israel's neck to get rid of their nuclear weapons. Or certainly our other Allies - French, the UK. Even China to some degree. So you've got these "legitimate" nuclear weapons states, and we don't seem to have as many concerns about them. But we do about these occasional players. I mean, what does that mean for us in terms of the future of arms control, or trying to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons in particular?

CRUISE: Well, it matters who you're asking. If you're asking the United States, yes, it very much matters who has these weapons. Even though the United States was in a cold war with the Soviet Union for some time, we now at least are communicating with them. China, it's a little bit more up in the air. But we don't have a lot of control over what they do. We can work on these treaties. We can get together with them. We can hope that the international community can pressure those countries enough to not use these weapons. And there haven't been a lot of indications in the last 20 years that they're going to. But what we don't know are the countries that you mentioned. A North Korea. An Iran. We don't know a lot about that leadership. We don't know when they would use them, if they would use them, and it's just that lack of confidence that they would abide by the international community's code, or by these agreements, that concerns us.

GRILLOT: But isn't it really a concern that nuclear weapons are still, today, 70 years later, all these years later, still the currency of power in the international community? I mean, there's a reason why countries like North Korea and Iran want to obtain a nuclear weapon. So that opens the door to discussing Iran. We do have now this nuclear agreement, this nuclear deal with Iran to limit, eliminate sanctions on Iran in exchange for safeguards and their reduction in their nuclear activities. But what this did, of course, was it put Iran on the world stage as an important country. North Korea, of course, got way more attention than it ever would've gotten otherwise because it was seeking, it has, nuclear weapons. Countries like Pakistan and India. These are few examples. We don't have a lot of countries outside of the typical, "legitimate," again, weapons of mass destruction holders, nuclear weapons powers. But still, they won't get rid of them. The United States isn't going to get rid of them. France, UK, they're not getting rid of their nuclear weapons, so they remain the currency of power in the international system. And therefore, how does this give any kind of legitimacy to the notion of trying to limit or prevent the spread or proliferation of these weapons?

CRUISE: Well that is obviously the issue. North Korea has been able to get a number of deals out of us. They have had issues feeding their population. There have been instances where we have asked them to draw back their nuclear program in exchange for food, those sorts of things. So yes, it is a currency. And I don't know if we're going to be able to let those countries know. But the fact that we have been able to come together, put together a deal with Iran, even though there's a great deal of opposition in this country, particularly in the Congress, there is a lot of support. There's a lot of international support. And that surely means something. The sanctions that were put on Iran were incredibly difficult and tough. And they have been celebrating the release of those sanctions in return for drawing down their nuclear weapons. So perhaps there is something, but we're going to continue to come back to this time and time again.

GRILLOT: Alright, well thank you very much Rebecca for being here and sharing your insight as always.

CRUISE: Thank you.

Copyright © 2015 KGOU Radio. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to KGOU Radio. This transcript is provided for personal, noncommercial use only. Any other use requires KGOU's prior permission.

KGOU transcripts are created on a rush deadline by our staff, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of KGOU's programming is the audio.

Brian Hardzinski is from Flower Mound, Texas and a graduate of the University of Oklahoma. He began his career at KGOU as a student intern, joining KGOU full time in 2009 as Operations and Public Service Announcement Director. He began regularly hosting Morning Edition in 2014, and became the station's first Digital News Editor in 2015-16. Brian’s work at KGOU has been honored by Public Radio News Directors Incorporated (PRNDI), the Oklahoma Association of Broadcasters, the Oklahoma Associated Press Broadcasters, and local and regional chapters of the Society of Professional Journalists. Brian enjoys competing in triathlons, distance running, playing tennis, and entertaining his rambunctious Boston Terrier, Bucky.
More News
Support nonprofit, public service journalism you trust. Give now.