OPINION: Nuclear deterrence theory cannot be our future

Personal testimonies and messages from survivors are invaluable and unquestionably the source of the atomic-bombed cities' ability to communicate and exert influence, but it is also undeniable that efforts have depended too heavily on survivors.

For that reason, during my time as governor I focused on making survivors' initiatives sustainable by fostering the next generation and building hubs for peace advocacy.

As an example, I established the Hiroshima Organization for Global Peace, called HOPe, to work toward the abolition of nuclear weapons, published the Hiroshima Report that assesses countries' nuclear disarmament efforts and held the Hiroshima Roundtable conferences bringing together experts from Japan and abroad.

The activities centered on HOPe help nurture people who study national security policy and ways of building peace that do not rely on nuclear weapons. Efforts must also move forward to newly position nuclear abolition within the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals.

Marking the 80th anniversary of the atomic bombing on Aug. 6 last year, I quoted in my address at the Peace Memorial Ceremony an ancient Chinese poet, before adding, "Remains the nation; ruined are the mountains and rivers."

As history shows, deterrence in which hostile states threaten each other with force will someday break down. If nuclear deterrence collapses and a nuclear war erupts, humanity and the Earth would be beyond recovery. Even if the conceptual "states" could be preserved, the land and the people would be unable to rebuild. There is no way we should entrust the future to such security policy.

Nuclear deterrence theory itself is fiction, because it is merely a "shared perception" that "because the other side has nuclear weapons, I cannot use them, and because I have them, the other side cannot use them."

While nuclear weapons as physical power symbolize realism, human perceptions in handling them are fraught with danger. What would happen if an overconfident leader emerges in a nuclear-armed state, a politician's egoism takes hold and pressure from an agitated populace surges?

If uncertain factors such as misunderstandings, miscalculations, human error or accidents are added, the idea that "because we have nuclear weapons, the other side cannot use them" no longer holds.

Such deterrence thinking has been the final obstacle hampering nuclear abolition. Precisely because nuclear powers are continuing wars and nuclear risks are rising, it is necessary to aim for security that does not depend on nuclear weapons and change the conventional view that "nuclear weapons are a necessary evil."

In Japan, there is talk of revising the country's three non-nuclear principles of not possessing, not producing and not permitting the introduction of nuclear weapons. But I do not believe Japan would become safer by allowing U.S. nuclear-capable vessels to call at Japanese ports.

If the third principle of not permitting the entry of nuclear weapons is changed, what will happen? Nuclear powers maintain postures to retaliate immediately with nuclear weapons if an adversary's missiles are launched in an emergency. Japan should be mindful of the risk of being drawn into the situation.

Nuclear use leads to the total destruction of human life. People live not only as individuals but within social ties and historical contexts. We must not forget that if nuclear weapons are used, all relationships will be destroyed and the long continuity of historical endeavor will be taken away.

---

Hidehiko Yuzaki, born in the city of Hiroshima in 1965, is a former governor of Hiroshima Prefecture. He graduated from the University of Tokyo, joined what is now the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and later founded a telecommunications company. He served as Hiroshima governor from 2009 to 2025.