Our panellists have been contributing to the debate surrounding the use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent, in light of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon’s statement that the world should move from ‘Ground Zero to Global Zero’ – a world without nuclear weapons. While many are emphatic that the world should dispose of all nuclear bombs, others are more likely to feel that the weapons form a necessary, if perhaps regrettable, part of the defence strategy of those nations concerned.
Ban Ki-Moon’s statement came as he attended the 65th anniversary of the world’s first nuclear bomb attack, at the Eternal Flame in Hiroshima's Peace Memorial Park in on August 6th.
Global ban, or necessary evil?
When asked for their comments, our panellists outlined the many shades of opinion surrounding this controversial issue. Opinions ranged from outright support of Ban-Ki Moon, with one writing ‘I fully agree that we should move towards a global ban and the sooner the better’, to those who feel that ‘nuclear bombs are entirely necessary’, or at best a ‘necessary evil’.
Many more held opinions somewhere between the two extremes, with most arguing that disarmament would be ‘ideal in theory’ but that the presence of ‘rogue states and extremists’ means that the banning of nuclear weapons will only ever amount to ‘wishful thinking’.
However, some preferred to focus on the other uses of nuclear power, with one specifically saying nuclear energy should ‘be used for a sustainable energy source and not war’.
The second and last nuclear bomb of the Second World War was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, three days after the first on August 9th. And while this year was the first in which a representative from the United States (the air force of which dropped both bombs) attended the ceremony in Hiroshima, many panellists seem to be resigned to the view that global disarmament is now ‘nothing but a pipe dream’.
