A Study of ranking countries based on the Hiroshima Report by comparison with the Global Peace Index

Since August 6, 1945, Hiroshima's mission has been to educate the world about the cruelty and disaster caused by the use of atomic weapons. Hiroshima has been so successful in their mission that, after almost 70 years since the destruction, atomic weapons have never been used during war. As Nobel laureate and economist, Thomas Schelling, pointed out in his acceptance speech, Hiroshima's legacy has prevented atomic weapons from being used in the world. Regardless of Hiroshima's legacy, the development of information technology and the resulting access to information have made it easier for anybody to learn how to make nuclear weapons and, consequently, erode our ability to avoid catastrophe. The Hiroshima Report, in which 19 countries' performances on nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and nuclear security are evaluated based on the objective data, would have a potential to play a role in promoting efforts toward a world without nuclear weapons. However, the Report needs to do more work, and I would propose a ranking of countries evaluated. According to the Hiroshima Report, evaluation of the three areas (i.e. nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and nuclear security) for the three groups of countries (i.e. nuclear-weapon states, non-NPT parties, and non-nuclear-weapon states) was made separately because of their different characteristics as well as different set of criteria. However, such a way of evaluation could make it less clear to identify which country can be evaluated positively and vice-versa, and then weakens the impact of the Report. My recommendation for the upcoming Hiroshima Report is to integrate three areas as well as three groups, and to rank countries evaluated under the headlines of decreasing the threat of nuclear weapons