Not learning the lessons of history: clinging to power and domination in the nuclear age.

Abstract

On 27 of July, as this issue was being finalized, there was limited media coverage of the 70 anniversary of the Korean War Armistice. While recognizing that the Armistice Agreement had prevented further bloodshed, the UN Secretary General stated that ‘the threat of escalation is growing’ and what was needed included ‘complete and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula’ (United Nations 2023). The Korean War is often referred to as the ‘forgotten war’ but is anything but by those who fought it. It involved an air campaign that obliterated, for example, 65–100% of seven of Korea’s major cities, and involved the use of 23,557 tons of napalm (Cummings 2011). As previous conflicts remain unresolved and new ones are alarmingly unpredictable the urgency to ensure nuclear weapons are never used and eventually eliminated is evident – as it has always been. However, it appears the leaders of nuclear armed states are still not listening. The chapter on world nuclear forces from the 2023 Yearbook, that the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute has made free to download (SIPRI 2023), reports that while the number of nuclear warheads globally continues to decline this is mainly due to Russia and the United States continuing to dismantle retired warheads. Reductions in operational warheads appear to have stalled and their number is now rising. The United States and Russia are both replacing and modernizing their warheads and associated delivery systems. China’s stockpile is being modernized and expanded but expected to remain considerably smaller. The other six nuclear-armed states, while their stockpiles are smaller still, are all either developing or deploying new weapons systems or have said they intend to do so (SIPRI 2023). Two weeks before the 78 anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, the film Oppenheimer was released on 21 July with generally positive reviews in the mainstream media. Criticism elsewhere centred around the lack of portrayal of the true horrors on the ground in Japan – at the time of writing the film is yet to be released in Japan – and the lack of inclusion of the health consequences of the Trinity test. Debates among scientists and their moral dilemmas portrayed in the film include Leo Szilard’s petition against the bombing signed by eminent scientist and physicists. Already in 1939 working on chain reactions Szilard is quoted as saying: ‘We turned the switch, saw the flashes, watched for ten minutes, then switched everything off and went home. That night I knew the world was headed for sorrow’ (Szilard 1939). MEDICINE, CONFLICT AND SURVIVAL 2023, VOL. 39, NO. 3, 195–198 https://doi.org/10.1080/13623699.2023.2247913