Hiroshima marked the 81st anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing on Thursday, and Mayor Kazumi Matsui used the memorial to call out major powers for waging wars and dressing up nuclear possession as “deterrence.” The city’s annual ritual put the machinery of state power back in the frame: 50,000 people were expected to attend, representatives from some 120 countries and regions were there, and a peace bell rang at 8:15 a.m., the exact time a U.S. B-29 dropped the bomb on the city.
Who Pays for Their “Security”
Matsui’s warning was blunt. “Downplaying the inhumanity of nuclear weapons and accepting the use of force to pursue one’s own prosperity risk cycles of violent retaliation that could ultimately result in another Hiroshima or Nagasaki,” he said. He added that too many political leaders still treat nuclear deterrence as realistic and keep legitimizing violence, which “simply pushes a world without nuclear weapons further into the distance.” He called on each citizen to learn the lessons of the past and take action. That’s the part the powerful never like: ordinary people remembering what their rulers do in the name of order.
The ceremony came with the usual choreography of official grief. A minute of silence. A ringing bell. Heads bowed under the shadow of a catastrophe created by state war-making. The bombing of Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, destroyed the city and killed 140,000 people. Three days later, another bomb dropped on Nagasaki killed 70,000. Japan surrendered on Aug. 15, ending World War II and Japan’s nearly half-century of aggression in Asia. The numbers sit there like a ledger of command decisions paid for by people who had no say.
What the Powerful Call “Realism”
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi attended the memorial for the first time as prime minister and said she will take “a realistic approach” toward achieving a world where nuclear weapons are never used, within the framework of the United Nations’ treaty to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. That language has the familiar smell of managed limits. The framework stays. The hierarchy stays. The weapons stay in the conversation.
This year’s ceremony came amid speculation that Takaichi’s hawkish government, which supports the idea of nuclear deterrence, may ease Japan’s postwar three non-nuclear principles when it compiles new security and defense documents later this year. Takaichi has advocated a review of the principles for a possibility of dropping the third one, which is not permitting nuclear weapons to be brought into the country. She said Japan has maintained its postwar three non-nuclear principles, but she stopped short of promising they’ll remain untouched. That’s how the apparatus speaks when it wants room to maneuver.
Survivors have expressed frustration and worry over growing support for the possession of nuclear weapons for deterrence by the international community, including Japan. Japan is under the protection of the U.S. nuclear umbrella and has repeatedly sought Washington’s reassurance for its commitment and stronger protection. Because of that, Japan’s government has rejected survivors’ request to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons or attend its meetings as observers. The people who lived through the blast are left asking for a seat at a table built to exclude them.
Memory Fades, Power Doesn’t
The number of survivors has fallen to 91,105, about a quarter of the original number, with their average age exceeding 86. Survivors worry about fading memories, and the youngest among them were too young to clearly recall the attack. Time keeps moving. The institutions that made the world livable for the powerful keep their grip.
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said in a written statement, “The horror of nuclear weapons is just one lesson of Hiroshima. Another is the need to build a world in which the threat or use of these weapons becomes unthinkable.” He added, “Hiroshima stands as an inspiring example of resilience, renewal and hope. Across generations, its people remind us that, even after the darkest moments, we can choose — and build — a different future,” and called for “dialogue over division, cooperation over confrontation and common security over narrow advantage.”
The words are polished. The bomb was not.