The announcement that the USA was withdrawing from treaties limiting the nuclear arms race is a cause for concern. It may feel justified in doing this because Russia has apparently not honoured its commitments. If Russia has been at fault, then this most likely reflects weaknesses in the compliance mechanisms rather than the treaty is unworkable.
The timing of the announcement seems particularly unfortunate, coming as it did just a few days before 6 August. This is the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in 1945.
The anniversary remains important because it serves as a reminder that nuclear weapons have been used and that they could be used again. Regardless of debates about whether extreme measures were needed to defeat Japan in the Pacific War, we need to remember that tens of thousands of civilians died either quickly or excruciatingly slowly as a result of that event.
The victors in that war wrote the histories and so it is hardly surprising that the bombing of Hiroshima — and of Nagasaki a few days later — was seen as an end rather than as a beginning. Some critics have argued that one purpose of the bombing was to demonstrate US superiority to the Russians.
Indisputable facts about the arms race remain. In terms of the kiloton in nuclear arsenals, today nuclear weapons have the potential to deliver destruction equivalent to a million Hiroshimas.
The arms race has impoverished the world in terms of the opportunities lost to address poverty, hunger and disease and so to ameliorate the causes of instability. Nuclear weapons and general arms races have contributed to the distrust between east and west. Lazy leaders in the world's richest countries trade on the distrust of others implicit in armaments.
While some world leaders might complain about fake news, they engage in propaganda campaigns of their own. Of course the horrors perpetrated in the USA on 911 should be remembered. However the number of deaths involved ought to be kept in perspective.
"We should be using our convenient location to pressure the USA to strengthen arms treaties, not abandon them."
One way of doing this is to remember the greater numerical losses at Hiroshima. In both cases, those inflicting the damage reckoned they had justification. There was nothing moral about what happened on 911. The usual moral argument offered for bombing Hiroshima is one of proportionality — that it saved more lives than it cost. Any appeal