Ignoring lesson from Hiroshima will be at a great risk

This year too on August 6, thousands gathered at the Peace Memorial Park of Hiroshima to join in interfaith religious services to commemorate the anniversary of the first ever bombing of a city on this planet by an atomic bomb. The second bomb dropped on Nagasaki only three days later in fact brought the World War II to an end.
The supporters of the bombings argue that the deterrent effect of those two bombs have till today kept the world from using another. Also, the bombings were necessary in order to avoid the cost of continuation of the war then. Partly, such arguments sound logical but is there any rationale behind dropping so devastating bombs on civilian populations?
Carrying attacks on military installations or forces is one thing but targeting civilians is a completely different proposition. Today nuclear bombs or arsenals have many times more destructive power. But the possessors of such nukes have campaigned for non-proliferation of nuclear armament. They have retained the right to develop and perfect newer and more sophisticated version of the weapons but insisted that others would be stopped from possessing those.
All because, they argue, the countries eager to reach the capability will mishandle such technology and weapons. This is a flawed argument. However restraining and responsible the system of power delegation at the top is in a country, at the end of the day it is an individual who takes the final decision on triggering a nuclear war. The world went on the brink of starting one over the Bay of Pigs during the Cuban missile crisis.
Once again, the North Atlantic Organisation (NATO) and Russia are eying each other with suspicion. Any further provocation from either side can lead to the Third World War. Already there has been enough provocation over the Ukraine crisis. The US has pushed its military interests at Russia's door perhaps in order to keep itself at harm's way. China, on the other hand, has flexed its muscles by this time to further the boundary of its economic and strategic interests. A cornered Russia made good use of this rivalry by sending overtures to Beijing. Today, the disputes between China and Russia have been mostly forgotten and they are once again growing chummy.
The net result is that the cold war of the past has witnessed a different polarisation of powers. In an event of military confrontation therefore, a proven military power Russia will count on Chinese support and the vice versa.
The scenario of an unfolding military confrontation between such powers will be different from those between the US and Afghanistan or the US and Iraq. Not only cities will perish but entire nations or areas are likely to be obliterated from the face of the earth. After all, nuclear technology has been taken to such a level that the destructive power is beyond most people's imagination. The total stockpiles of one of the parties can destroy the planet many times over.
It is because of this huge threat, the world needed to be entirely free from such weapons. Imposition of embargo on a country like Iran is not enough. The big powers should volunteer to destroy their stockpiles if they want others not to try their hands at it. It surely is a double standard. A few countries will continue to making experiment for developing more lethal weapons and others will be asked not to go for any such exercise. Is this acceptable? Well, rogue states may be discouraged from going about such missions. But Israel, good enough to earn such notoriety, has long possessed the capability. This is in addition to the supplies from the USA.
So, it is in the interest of the planet and against the backdrop of the climate change, the choice of priorities for wealth expenditure has to be made right. Instead of spending limitless wealth on destructive weapons, the fund should be made available to curing the sick planet.