By Lara Kajs
Dispatches from the Field — The Genocide Report
Washington, DC — 5 August 2022
Seventy-seven years after Hiroshima, the continued existence of nuclear arsenals underscores both the necessity and the limitations of the global non-proliferation regime.
At 8:15 a.m. on 6 August 1945, a U.S. B-29 bomber, the Enola Gay, dropped the first atomic bomb used in war on the city of Hiroshima, Japan. In a matter of seconds, a city of approximately 350,000 people was devastated. An estimated 140,000 people died. Three days later, a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, killing an additional 75,000. Within days, Japan surrendered, bringing the Second World War to an end.
The immediate destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is well documented. Less visible—but equally consequential—were the long-term effects of radiation exposure. In the months following the bombings, tens of thousands died from burns, injuries, and acute radiation sickness. In the years that followed, survivors experienced elevated rates of cancer and other chronic illnesses, with effects observed across generations.
Hiroshima is not only a historical event—it is a continuing warning.
Nuclear Weapons Beyond the Blast
The destructive capacity of nuclear weapons extends far beyond initial detonation. Radiation exposure, environmental contamination, and long-term public health impacts transform nuclear use into a multi-generational crisis.
These characteristics distinguish nuclear weapons from other forms of warfare. Their effects are not confined to battlefields or military targets; they are indiscriminate in both scope and duration. The humanitarian consequences alone place nuclear weapons in a category of existential risk.
This reality has shaped global efforts to prevent their use.
The Non-Proliferation Regime
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which entered into force in 1970, represents the cornerstone of the international nuclear order. Its framework rests on three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
Under the treaty, non-nuclear-weapon states agree not to pursue nuclear weapons, while nuclear-weapon states commit to pursuing disarmament. In parallel, all parties retain the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under international safeguards.
The NPT has played a critical role in limiting the spread of nuclear weapons. However, it has not eliminated them. Today, nine states—China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—possess nuclear arsenals, collectively holding an estimated 13,000 warheads. While this number is lower than Cold War peaks, the continued existence—and in some cases modernization—of these arsenals underscores the fragility of the current system.
This fragility is reflected in ongoing efforts to revive the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement (JCPOA), which remain uncertain. Prior to the United States’ withdrawal in 2018, the International Atomic Energy Agency consistently verified that Iran was in compliance with the agreement’s nuclear restrictions, demonstrating that negotiated constraints can effectively limit nuclear development when implemented and monitored. However, the erosion of the agreement following the U.S. withdrawal underscores a persistent reality: non-proliferation frameworks are only as durable as the political will that sustains them. As negotiations continue without resolution, the gap between commitment and continuity remains a defining challenge of the nuclear order.
Deterrence and Its Limits
Nuclear deterrence has long been framed as a mechanism for preventing large-scale war. The premise is straightforward: the catastrophic consequences of nuclear use discourage states from engaging in direct conflict.
Yet deterrence is not a guarantee of stability. It depends on rational decision-making, reliable command and control systems, and the absence of miscalculation—all of which are inherently uncertain.
Recent geopolitical developments have highlighted these risks. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was accompanied by explicit nuclear signaling, raising concerns about escalation. At the same time, military activity around nuclear infrastructure—such as the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant—has underscored the vulnerability of civilian nuclear facilities in conflict zones.
Elsewhere, expanding missile capabilities and strategic competition among major powers continue to strain existing arms control frameworks.
Deterrence has prevented use—but it has not eliminated risk.”
From Norms to Action
Global leaders have repeatedly affirmed that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” This principle reflects a shared recognition of the catastrophic consequences of nuclear use.
However, rhetorical commitments have not consistently translated into measurable progress on disarmament. While the NPT establishes a legal and normative framework, its effectiveness ultimately depends on state compliance and political will.
The gap between commitment and action remains one of the central challenges of the non-proliferation regime.
Policy Implications
Hiroshima’s legacy reinforces the urgency of strengthening both non-proliferation and disarmament efforts. This includes reinforcing existing arms control agreements while pursuing new ones, reducing reliance on nuclear deterrence in national security doctrines, strengthening safeguards and oversight of nuclear materials, and addressing emerging risks such as cyber vulnerabilities and the potential involvement of non-state actors. Absent sustained and coordinated action across these areas, the risk of nuclear use—whether intentional, accidental, or the result of miscalculation—persists.
Atrocity Prevention Lens
The use of nuclear weapons constitutes one of the clearest pathways to mass atrocity, given their indiscriminate and catastrophic impact on civilian populations. Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrate how rapidly large-scale loss of life can occur, with consequences extending across generations. The continued existence of nuclear arsenals, combined with evolving geopolitical tensions, maintains a latent risk environment. Strengthening non-proliferation and disarmament frameworks is therefore not only a matter of security policy, but a core component of atrocity prevention.
Legal Framework
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)
The NPT establishes binding obligations for non-proliferation, disarmament, and peaceful nuclear use. While widely adopted, it faces challenges related to enforcement and uneven compliance.
International Humanitarian Law
The use of nuclear weapons raises serious concerns under principles of distinction, proportionality, and unnecessary suffering. Their indiscriminate effects challenge compliance with these core legal standards.
Arms Control and Disarmament Regimes
A network of bilateral and multilateral agreements supports nuclear risk reduction. The erosion of some of these agreements has increased concerns about strategic stability.
Customary International Law and Norms
Global norms against nuclear use have strengthened over time, reinforced by humanitarian advocacy and state practice. However, these norms remain vulnerable without corresponding disarmament progress.
Suggested Citation
Kajs, Lara. “Hiroshima: An Argument for the NPT.” Dispatches from the Field. The Genocide Report, Washington, DC,
5 August 2022.
Photo Credit
Hiroshima Mushroom Clouds by Kevin Jones. License CC 2.0
About TGR
The Genocide Report (TGR) publishes analysis and educational resources on conflict, international law, and atrocity prevention. Its work seeks to bridge academic research, field realities, and public understanding of mass violence and civilian protection.
About the Author
Lara Kajs is the founder and executive director of The Genocide Report, a Washington, DC-based educational nonprofit focused on atrocity prevention and international law. She is the author of several field-based books on conflict, displacement, humanitarian crises, and international humanitarian law, drawing on extensive research and field experience in Yemen, Syria, and Afghanistan. Her writing and public speaking focus on atrocity crimes, forced displacement, the protection of civilians, and the legal frameworks governing armed conflict.