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.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS