The birthday of the Hiroshima attack highlights the nuclear threat of Russia, in China,

Wednesday marks the 80th anniversary of the moment when the United States used the very first nuclear bomb of the Japanese city of Hiroshima, followed by the bomb attack in Nagasaki three days later on August 9. But despite almost a century of learned lessons, nuclear war remains a significant threat.

“This is the first time that the United States has been facing two nuclear peer opponents – Russia and China,” Fox News Digital Rebeccah Heinrichs, nuclear expert and main member of the Hudson Institute told Fox News.

Heinrichs explained that not only Moscow and Beijing continue to develop new nuclear capacities and delivery systems, but that they are increasingly collaborating with each other in direct opposition to the West, and more visible, the United States

Trump lifts Veil on American submarines in Shot warning to the Kremlin in the “intelligent” repositioning movement

An aerial photograph of Hiroshima, in Japan, shortly after the atomic bomb of the “little boy” in 1945. (Universal History Archive / Uig via Getty Images)

“It is a much more complex nuclear threat environment than what the United States even had to face during the Cold War, where we have just had a nuclear peer adversary in the Soviet Union,” she said. “In this regard, this is a serious problem, especially when China and Russia invest in nuclear capacities and at the same time have revengeful objectives.”

Despite the immense known devastation which would accompany an atomic war between two nuclear nations, he crossed that the threat of nuclear war increases.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – which collectively killed some 200,000 people, not to mention the tens of thousands of people who died later from poisoning for radiation and cancer – were allocated at the end of the Second World War.

But the bombs made more than the end of the deadliest war in human history – they have forever changed the military doctrine, triggered a race for nuclear arms and cemented the concept of deterrence through the theory of mutually assured destruction.

Earlier this year, the bulletin of atomic scientists advanced the “day clock” of a second – bringing it closer to “midnight” or atomic collapse than ever.

In January, the Council of Scientists and the Heads of Security in charge of 78 -year -old clock, Who is used to measure the level of threat of nuclear war, said that passing the clock to 89 seconds at midnight “indicates that the world is being risk unprecedented, and that continuing on the current path is a form of madness.”

Trump confirms that 2 nuclear submarines are “in the region” to counter Russia

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping serve his hand during a meeting in Beijing on October 18, 2023. (Sergei Ganyev / Pool / AFP via Getty Images)

Despite increasing nuclear threats from North Korea and international concerns concerning the Iranian nuclear program, the threat level has largely resisted the three largest actors in the nuclear arena: Russia, the United States and China.

The increase in the level of threat has been attributed to the refusal of Russia to comply with international nuclear treaties in the midst of its continuous degeneration of war in Ukraine and its opposition hostile to NATO nations, as well as to the insistence of China on the enlargement of its nuclear arsenal.

But the bulletin, which was founded by scientists of the Manhattan project in 1945 to inform the public of the dangers of atomic warfare, also said that the United States played a role in increasing the level of nuclear threat.

“The United States has abdicated its role as voice of prudence. It seems inclined to extend its nuclear arsenal and to adopt a posture which strengthens the belief that the use” limited ” of nuclear weapons can be managed, “said the bulletin. “Such displaced confidence could bring us into a nuclear war.”

But Heinrichs at the “Alarmist” message and argued that deterrence remains a very real protector against nuclear war, even if Russia is increasingly threatening Western nations with atomic use.

“I think it’s a serious threat. I don’t think it is inevitable that we have somehow looked at nuclear Armageddon,” she said.

China’s growing nuclear nuclear arsenal aims to break American alliances and dominate Asia, the report warns

An intercontinental yars ballistic missile is launched from an air field during military exercises in Russia on February 19, 2022. (Press service from the Russian Defense Ministry via AP, file)

Heinrichs argued that the main threat was not the number of nuclear warheads that a nation has, but in the way they threaten to use their capacities.

“I think that whenever there is a threat of nuclear use, it is because adversaries, authoritarian countries, in particular Russia, threaten to use nuclear weapons to invade another country. And this is where the greatest risk of deterrent is,” she said. “It is not because of the number of nuclear weapons.”

Heinrichs said Russia reduced the nuclear threshold by regularly threatening to use nuclear weapons in a movement to force Western nations to capitulate their requests, as in the case of the capture of the territory in Ukraine and tries to refuse it to access NATO.

Instead, it argued that the United States and its allies were to improve its deterrence by remaining not only above its capacities, but by widening their nuclear scope in regions such as Indo-Pacific.

A rocket launches from the missile system since the installation of Plesetsk in northwestern Russia on December 9, 2020. (Press service from the Russian Defense Ministry via AP, file)

Click here to obtain the Fox News app

“The answer is not to be so afraid or alarmed that you capitulate, because you are only going to no nuclear coercion if you do this,” she said. “The answer is to communicate cautiously and carefully the Russians that they will not succeed in nuclear coercion, that the United States also has credible response options.

“We also have nuclear weapons, and we have credible and proportional answers, and they should therefore not follow this path,” said Heinrichs. “This is how we maintain nuclear peace. This is how we dissuade conflicts. And this is how we ensure that a nuclear weapon is not used.”