Eighty years ago this August, the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing tens of thousands of people. Those acts helped to end World War II, but also ushered in the nuclear age.
Today, a new atomic arms race is stirring, this time not provoked by Russia, China or North Korea — who have been ramping up their arsenals — but instead by US President Donald Trump’s trade war, and his threats to withdraw the US defense umbrella. The result is a world growing more dangerous, not just for Asia, but for Americans, too.
The security architecture that helped prevent conflict from weapons of mass destruction is at risk of unravelling. For decades, Asian nations have relied on Washington’s commitment to deterrence. That is no longer guaranteed.
Illustration: Mountain People
Long-time US allies, such as Japan and South Korea, are calculating the cost — both economic and political — of developing their own arsenals. India and Pakistan have a growing supply of warheads, potentially inflaming an already volatile conflict made worse by recent tensions in Kashmir.
Trump insists that Washington has received the short end of the stick from defense deals, and that US protection is keeping the world safe while other economies benefit more. He has a point — but is also ignoring historical lessons.
The aftermath of the US’ atomic bombings prompted a recognition that such a tragedy must be avoided at all costs. So deep was the soul-searching in American society that the goal of every US president since Harry Truman has been to limit rather than encourage the spread of these weapons. Much of this was achieved through negotiated agreements and treaties.
The policies have worked. Only nine countries now possess such arsenals, even though many more have the ability to build a bomb. However, Trump is ushering in a more dangerous era. On the campaign trail in 2016, he suggested that Japan and South Korea might need to develop their own capabilities. Comments like that are influencing public opinion. A survey last year by the Korea Institute for National Unification showed that six in 10 South Koreans now favor having them.
If Seoul opts for homegrown nuclear weapons, this would lead to a domino effect, said Jamie Levin and Cho Young-won, associate professors of political science at St Francis Xavier University. Japanese public sentiment has been deeply opposed because of the nation’s painful past, but it has a full nuclear fuel cycle, allowing it in theory to fashion thousands of bombs in as little as six months, experts have said.
India and Pakistan are among the most worrying players. The risk of a conflict increased this week after a terrorist attack in Kashmir killed dozens in some of the region’s worst violence in years. So far, they have stuck to diplomatic measures as retaliation, but there is always the concern of escalation.
Even in Southeast Asia, a relative safe zone, the risks have become much more pronounced. The 1995 Treaty of Bangkok established a Southeast Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, banning members from development, manufacture, acquisition or possession. However, if larger nations ramp up their arsenals, the spillover effect in Southeast Asia could force others to either look into developing their own technology, or find a new defense umbrella. Washington’s unpredictability has created a leadership vacuum that Beijing will be keen to fill.
Rather than failing to offer credible security guarantees, the US should engage with governments in Asia and address their defense ambitions. Under the administration of former US president Joe Biden, a bilateral initiative called the Nuclear Consultative Group in 2023 was launched with Seoul, which helped to quell some anxiety. Efforts like this should be expanded to other allies like Japan.
Convincing countries to stick with US deterrence strategies would be wise. Smaller nations watch what bigger countries do, not what they say. The US still has the opportunity to play global stabilizer and should not cede that role to China.
The world once looked to Washington to keep it safe. That trust is fraying. It is in the US’ interest — not just Asia’s — to rebuild it.
Karishma Vaswani is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asia politics with a special focus on China. Previously, she was the BBC’s lead Asia presenter, and worked for the BBC across Asia and South Asia for two decades. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS