Sackur. Today im in oslo to meet the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize in this year, the award goes to the international the award goes to International Campaign to abolish Nuclear Weapons. Two women from very different generations who have worked tirelessly for nuclear disarmament. They believe they have embarked on a campaign which will ultimately lead to the elimination of all the worlds Nuclear Weapons. But are they changemakers or wishful thinkers . Beatrice fihn and Setsuko Thurlow, many congratulations on winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Of course, welcome to hardtalk i want to begin by asking both of you how you felt when you heard this news is that you had won the Nobel Peace Prize. You are the executive director of ican, International Campaign to abolish Nuclear Weapons. Did you expect it . Thank you to having me here. We did not expect it at all. We have been so not expect it at all. We have been so preoccupied with the treaty and had it concluded in the summer. The treaty to prohibit Nuclear Weapons which got so many nations around the world to sign up to. Exactly. So what i got the phone call, i was in com plete what i got the phone call, i was in complete shock, so honoured, i thought it was a prank at first. We we re thought it was a prank at first. We were nervous. Many powerful people dont like this treaty. I was a little bit paranoid. Then we watched the live the live broadcast to make sure it was real. Just such an incredible honour for the whole campaign, forall incredible honour for the whole campaign, for all the people that have fought against Nuclear Weapons for so long. Just wonderful. As you say, you look at Setsuko Thurlow. For you, this is the most extraordinary, personal story as well because you use it with me today as a survivor of hiroshima. You were there in 1945. For you, the news that the Nobel Committee had decided to recognise the work of the International Campaign to abolish Nuclear Weapons, what did it mean to you . Ijust couldnt believe it, that first moment. I was numb, i think. I pinched myself. Is it real . But the people around me were screaming with joy. So but the people around me were screaming withjoy. So it but the people around me were screaming with joy. So it must be true. But it took me four days before i really felt like i actually won. I think we have to start this interview is it so remarkable for me to sit with you. We have to start by having you reflect on the memories you hold of hiroshima 1945 because, ina sense, you hold of hiroshima 1945 because, in a sense, everything about the Campaign Today is about the reality of what Nuclear Weapons do. So if you would take me back to that day in the summer of 45. I was a 13 year old grade seven student in a girls school. I was at the Army Headquarters that morning instead of classroom because japan was losing fast in the war. And they utilised all the cheap labour. So i was at the Army Headquarters. And that was a monday morning and at eight oclock, we had the assembly and the major said, this is the beginning of your work and you demonstrate your patriotism to the nation and loyalty to the emperor. Yes, sir, we will at that moment, i assure the blueish white flash from the window and then ihad. Was white flash from the window and then i had. Was there a noise . No, nothing. They say there was a thunderous noise but people far away heard it. I didnt hear anything. So the moment i saw the flash, my body was thrown up in the air and i lost consciousness. When i regained consciousness, in total darkness and silence come silence, then i thought, this is it. I was faced with death. Then i started hearing the faint voices of my classmates in the faint voices of my classmates in the dark. Help me, mother, help me. Then, all of a sudden, somebody started pushing my left shoulder. Dont give up, girl. Keep pushing, keep kicking. Im trying to free you. You see the sun coming through that opening . Crawl toward that. As clear as possible. And thats what i did in the total darkness. I dont know how many seconds i took but by the time i came out, the rubble was already on fire. There were about 30 girls who were with me in the same room, they were all burned to death alive. Wow. How do you think you survived . It alive. Wow. How do you think you survived . It sounds alive. Wow. How do you think you survived . It sounds like a miracle. Yes, i think so its like a miracle but i dont believe, some people say, well, god saved you to do the job for disarmament. No, thats a nonsensical interpretation. God doesnt help you for that. It was sheer, sheer luck, ithink, the people who were just half a metre away from me just incinerated. And its so horrible to reflect on it but how many members of your extended family and your classmates did you lose . I lost 351 schoolmates who happened to be at another place in the centre part of the city. Together with several thousand other students. All the kids from all the high schools who were brought to the centre and just above them, the detonation of atomic bomb took place. Those young peoplejust didnt have a chance. They simply vaporised. Melted. And family . I lost eight of my family, yes. And when i think of my hiroshima memory, the first person i think of is my nephew, four year old little boy, who kept asking for water because he was burned so badly. I saw him about twice or three times, just blood, condensed, and everybody was begging for water. 4000dc heat on that ground level. Everybody was thirsty. Anyway, i did see that day something ican anyway, i did see that day something i can never forget. Anyway, i did see that day something i can neverforget. People looked like ghosts, not human beings, because of the skin and flesh was burned, blackened, swollen, melting, the hair was standing up. Naked. And some people were carrying their rivals. Some people just some people were carrying their rivals. Some peoplejust collapsed onto the ground. At their stomach burst open, it in test times stretched out. So i had to learn to step over the dead bodies to escape. It is very hard to listen to you today and not feel utterly horrified by it all. And yet you are a survivor and you have become a committed campaigner through all your adult life against Nuclear Weapons and its so interesting to me, beatrice, that the testimony of setsuko has become such a central pa rt setsuko has become such a central part of yourcampaign. Setsuko has become such a central part of your campaign. 72 years on why, in your opinion, part of your campaign. 72 years on why, in youropinion, is part of your campaign. 72 years on why, in your opinion, is it so important to harness the real life testimony of setsuko and a few other survivors that remain, are able to talk about it . Well, this is what the weapons do. This is what they are. This is Nuclear Weapons. We like to think about them as abstract concepts like to think about them as abstract co nce pts of like to think about them as abstract concepts of power. Theories, wargames. But this is what Nuclear Weapons are. If we keep Nuclear Weapons are. If we keep Nuclear Weapons forever, they will be used again. This will happen. There is literally no preparedness to deal with this. There is nothing, relief agencies or naff National Authorities can do to help people. We help example the red cross do research on what they would do as a emergency relief act in terms of helping survivors. They said they would pull their staff out. They cant help. The un humanitarian agencies to the same thing. They say they are powerless, they cant do anything. But when you say this is the reality of Nuclear Weapons, it was the reality of the Nuclear Weapons that we used in 1945. I guess the point that so many strategists, thinkers on International Security issues would make to you is that actually, the fa ct make to you is that actually, the fact that the big world powers have maintained their Nuclear Weapons deter and over the last seven decades has actually ensured that they have not been used and that actually we have not had major wars between those big powers since the second world war. I wouldnt agree with that. I think Nuclear Weapons, we have been very close to use of Nuclear Weapons several times since the cold war. But isnt that the point of deterrence . You can get close and have huge confrontation and have wars even by proxy but you cannot step over the line because of the theory of mutually assured destruction that comes with these weapons for her setsukos testimony is the ultimate bearing witness. One day it will fail. We see now it is being threatened for use. We see World Leaders about totally destroying not just a World Leaders about totally destroying notjust a city, notjust a regime but the whole country, for example and that is really dangerous. We have multiple threads now. We have many more actors with Nuclear Weapons. We are terrorists, Cyber Security issues, we have so mini accidents. A lot of research coming out now on how close to accidents we were during the cold war, misunderstandings. They thought a Weather Satellite was an incoming missile. One person in the soviet union said, that doesnt feel right. He disregarded orders. Nuclear weapons have bought as to the brink so weapons have bought as to the brink so many times now fuelling conflicts today. The war in iraq. That was based on this issue of weapons of mass destruction. We have a tense situation in iran. In kashmir. Right now with north korea. Nuclear weapons are not solving that problem. Nuclear weapons are fuelling it. Lets unpick a bit of the work you have done, the work that has led you receiving this amazing prize here in oslo. I suppose more than anything else, you got the prize this year because you we re got the prize this year because you were in the ican, in its national campaign, were the driving force behind this International Treaty which more than 120 countries have proved, which outlaws, which prohibits Nuclear Weapons. The big problem with that treaty is that it does not include the support of any of the nations that currently have Nuclear Weapons. And that surely discredits it as a meaningful treaty . Absolutely not. We see with other treaties for example that norms can be very powerful and influence behaviour also with parties that are not a part of it. Landmines, the big producers, even though they didnt sign a treaty, they have shifted their behaviours. The market for landmines has dropped. We have seen efforts to clea n dropped. We have seen efforts to clean up landmines being done, saving peoples lives continuously because of the treaty. One practical question on how this treaty works because its central to the work you do. You say when 50 countries have formally it, it will be international law. My question is, what does that really mean, if the United States and russia and china let alone countries like north korea and we might talk about that more, if those nations do not accept this quote unquote international law, what meaning does it have . Still impact their behaviour and shift their norms. How . The us did not participate but last year, the last american producer stopped producing destinations, saying that there is a growing international stigma, there is bad business to keep investing in this weapon, and evenif keep investing in this weapon, and even if perhaps the Trump Administration now is trying to reverse the policy is, the company has said we will not do this. Reverse the policy is, the company has said we will not do thislj reverse the policy is, the company has said we will not do this. I want to quote you something. Ok. Something the Nobel Committee said in their citation in giving the award. They said this we live in the world today where the risk of Nuclear Weapons being used is greater than it has been for a very long time. Its true, two years advance the place, there is a far greater today than 75 years ago. I thought what i experienced in that city, was a catastrophic disaster. But if anything like under the bomb is used, human suffering is not going to be that scale. The whole city, whole region, half of the continent, could be melting away. That kind of different situation from 72 years ago and somehow, i think it is a madness to think that deterrence works, therefore we manage not to have the war past so many years. Well, im not sure that deterrence theory seems so implausible if one considers the strategies of the United States, russia and china, but i do want to talk to you particularly about north korea because we have seen the north korean developing Nuclear Weapons programme in recent weeks and months. We now know that they have quite an advanced capability, not just to weaponise but also be into miniature rise so they can put it on an intercontinental ballistic missile. We have seen those tests. You as a japanese citizen, albeit a woman who now in canada, surely you, that gives you pause. I meanjapan right now is protect did by the American Nuclear umbrella. Are you suggesting to me that the japanese people would be happy to see the americans give up their Nuclear Weapons and to japan to lose that protection . I think many serious japanese are thinking that maintaining the alliance, the relationship with the United States, which is ready to use Nuclear Weapons as a first strike weapon, and that makes japan weapons as a first strike weapon, and that makesjapan more vulnerable. On a human levelwhat is your reaction when you hear donald trump talk about fire and fury . He doesnt understand there are millions of human beings who could suffer from this and i have seen so many 100 thousand people miles away melt away and how a human many 100 thousand people miles away melt away and howa human can many 100 thousand people miles away melt away and how a human can we be . That is totally unacceptable moral behaviour. I will tell him that. And i will say the same to the north Korean Leader as well. They are behaving charitably and acceptably. Totally unacceptably. In the not so distant past, we saw iran tell lies about the nature of its nuclear programme. They were exposed ultimately the iaea and now run is strict Monitoring Programme but it is easy to disguise nuclear development, including military developments. Now, iwill quote development, including military developments. Now, i will quote you words of one expert in the field, a nuclear physicist, peter zimmerman, he says that in me on Hydrogen Bonds are small enough to hide in a coat closet. Verification of their destruction in the absence of a yet to be determined mechanism, because this is nothing you talk about your specific, and in the absence of a Strong International consensus verification is impossible. And with regard to north korea for example, isnt that a truth that means the big powers cannot sacrifice their Nuclear Weapons . No, because as long as we, some countries keep Nuclear Weapons you will inside proliferation. If a country like britain who have spent the last 70 yea rs britain who have spent the last 70 years arguing that if their weapons equal safety, of course a country like north korea will think the same, or a run. Like north korea will think the same, ora run. Why wouldnt like north korea will think the same, or a run. Why wouldnt they . Were never going to be able to address the proliferation challenges and we start rejecting development as an acceptable means of protecting ourselves. Threatening to mass murder civilians should not be a legitimate way of of ensuring safety. It creates an safety. It creates a heightened risk for it. When we address that, the verification, the technical challenges will be solved. It is the political will that needs to happen. It is interesting, gibberish talk about changing the political will but politics is also about, you know, politicians listening to them are trying to appeal to the public around the world and even democracies, at least. Here is something very interesting that i just saw the other day. Written by a Political Science professor, very respected security expert, at sta mford respected security expert, at Stamford University in the us. He surveyed opinion in Donald Trumps america about us attitudes to using Nuclear Weapons and he found 50 of americans today would approve of killing 2 million, for examples, iranian civilians if that would prevent a military conflict in which 20,000 us soldiers might die. Thats a p pa re ntly 20,000 us soldiers might die. Thats apparently the reality of us