In commemorations marking the 80th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, speakers once again omitted direct reference to the United States’ role in the 1945 attacks, continuing a decades-long precedent. During Friday’s memorial, Japanese and UN officials emphasized the catastrophic human toll of nuclear weapons and urged global disarmament but sidestepped naming the nation responsible for deploying the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed an estimated 200,000 civilians.
Prime Minister Ishiba Shigeru highlighted the need to preserve the memory of “the reality and tragedy of war” while avoiding specifics about the attacks’ origins. UN Secretary-General António Guterres, via disarmament chief Izumi Nakamitsu, pressed countries to reinforce the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) framework, calling for concrete steps toward eliminating nuclear arms. Nagasaki Mayor Shiro Suzuki echoed this, urging world leaders to outline actionable plans for abolition.
The silence on America’s historic responsibility mirrored Wednesday’s Hiroshima memorial, where speakers similarly focused on universal lessons rather than assigning blame. The bombings, which remain the sole wartime use of nuclear arms, have long been a contentious subject. While U.S. officials have historically justified the attacks as necessary to end World War II and avert a land invasion, a declassified 1946 U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey concluded Japan’s surrender was likely imminent without the bombings.
Tensions over nuclear policy resurfaced amid recent U.S. airstrikes on Iranian facilities linked to Tehran’s nuclear program. Washington claims the strikes aimed to curb potential weapons development, a charge Iran denies, asserting its right to peaceful nuclear technology under the NPT. Critics, including Russia and China, have accused the U.S. of hypocrisy, arguing such actions erode global non-proliferation norms.
As anniversary events underscored unresolved debates over historical accountability, the focus on disarmament goals contrasted with the political complexities of addressing past actions and current geopolitical rivalries. The gap between diplomatic rhetoric and tangible progress—amplified by recent events—remains a focal point for advocates seeking to avert future nuclear crises.
