Published in The Post, 6 August 2025

On VE day – May 8 – we marked the 80^th anniversary of the end of warfare in continental Europe, with New Zealanders recalling the celebrations of 1945.  

Yet clearly that war and the subsequent establishment of the United Nations with its peace and security mandate did not end all wars. According to a recent review, violent conflict  is now more widespread worldwide than it has been in decades, particularly since the onset of conflict in Myanmar and Ukraine and the resumed Gaza-Israel conflict. Across 50 different countries, there are an estimated 56 active conflicts, and the annual death toll now exceeds the 200,000 recorded in the genocide in Rwanda in 1994.  

We are coming up to the 80^th anniversary of the end of the war with Japan, which ended shortly after the first use of nuclear weapons in armed conflict on Hiroshima on August 6th and on Nagasaki on August 9^th 1945.

Unlike the case of conventional weapons, we have had no use of nuclear weapons since the end of the Second World War. We are not reminded of this threat, in part because the use of nuclear weapons is rarely threatened (Russia with respect to the  Ukraine conflict being an exception), in part because countries with nuclear weapons rarely talk up their prowess, and also because the peace and anti-nuclear movement is no longer as vocal as it was in the heyday of the Cold War.

I was privileged to be part of a delegation visiting Hiroshima in the lead-up to the 80^th anniversary of the dropping of the first nuclear bomb. This is what I learned (paraphrased from local sources) as a timely reminder of the exact details of the first use of nuclear weapons.

“In the early hours of August 6, 1945, the Enola Gay, a B-29 bomber, took off from the Mariana Islands headed for Hiroshima carrying an atomic bomb (nicknamed “Little Boy”). At 8.15 am the bomb was released. After 43 seconds it exploded about 600 metres above ground releasing a blast that swept the city in 10 seconds and a fireball with temperatures reaching 3,000-4,000 Celsius, with windspeeds of 440 metres a second. It is estimated that with a combination of the blast, the firestorm and consequent radiation about 140,000 people died (40% of the population), and over 90% of buildings were destroyed or burned down”.

Since then, there have been a range of treaties and agreements negotiated to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons and prevent their use.

One of the most important of these agreements is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which came into force in 1970, resting on three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

While nearly every country in the world is a party to the treaty — with the notable exceptions of India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel — the treaty’s long-term effectiveness is under strain, with the most recent NPT Review Conference in 2022 ending without consensus. Looking ahead, the NPT remains crucial but increasingly fragile, and its future depends on renewed political commitment and global cooperation — areas where non-nuclear states like New Zealand can serve as important moral and diplomatic leaders.

Despite this, according to a recent report by The Elders (the group of global leaders founded by Nelson Mandela), all the indications are that the architecture for nuclear arms control is breaking down, not least prompted by the United States (US) pulling out of both the anti-ballistic missile and intermediate-range nuclear forces treaties, and by Russia increasingly violating the terms of  arms control agreements and withdrawing from the arms reduction architecture.

Furthermore, while the number of nuclear warheads has been greatly reduced, the remaining weapons have a combined destructive power of 100,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs, nearly 4,000 remain operationally deployed, and just under 2,000 are on a high state of alert.  

A key concern is the way in which a conventional conflict could escalate into a nuclear exchange. For example, India and Pakistan have recently had a military exchange. Both states have nuclear weapons.  Were they to be used, it has been estimated that the potential number of deaths from such a conflict could be up to two billion, given the possible creation of a “nuclear winter” with subsequent climatic cooling leading to the collapse of crop production and to mass starvation.

Added to this danger is President Trump’s ambition to create a “golden dome” to prevent the incursion of destructive weapons into American airspace. Experts do not believe this is technically feasible, and strategists fear it would undermine the doctrine of “mutual vulnerability” whereby states are inhibited from entering warfare by the fear of effective retaliation. Attempts by the US to make itself invulnerable to attack would likely prompt other states to increase the number and sophistication of their armaments.

The Elders have advocated a minimisation agenda involved the four Ds: every nuclear-armed state should commit to a Doctrine of “no first use”; De-alerting, whereby as many weapons as possible are taken off high alert; reduction in the operational Deployment of nuclear weapons, currently standing at more than a quarter; and Decreased numbers of nuclear warheads from the present 12,000, with the US, Russia and China reducing to no more than 500 each.

This may seem distant from New Zealand’s strategic concerns, but our country has had a proud tradition of non-nuclear alignment. There is a role for non-nuclear-aligned states like New Zealand to play a constructive role in ensuring that our period of 80 years free of nuclear war since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki stays that way.

Peter Davis, Emeritus Professor of Population Health and Social Science, University of Auckland

If you want to subscribe to my posts, go to https://peterdavisnz.com/ and follow the instructions. You will be joining quite a few others!