i'm kasia madera with bbc world news. our top story. the israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu has said it's time for palestinians to accept the reality thatjerusalem is israel's capital. there were more violent protests across the middle east in response to us president donald trump's decision to recognisejerusalem as israel's capital. venezuela's leader nicolas maduro says he is banning the main opposition parties from standing in next year's presidential election. he said only parties which took part in sunday's mayoral elections would be allowed to participate. and this video is trending on bbc.com. it's of an elephant attacking a bus in south—west china. it's not really clear why it took such a dislike to the vehicle, but you'll be glad to know that neither the elephant nor anyone on board the bus was hurt. that's all from me now. stay with us on bbc world news. now on bbc news it's time for a special edition of hardtalk with this year's winners of the nobel peace prize. welcome to hardtalk, iron stephen

sackur. today i'm 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 world's 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 don't 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 couldn't 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 o'clock, 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 didn't 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. don't give up, girl. keep pushing, keep kicking. i'm trying to free you. you see the sun coming through that opening? crawl toward that. as clear as possible. and that's what i did in the total darkness. i don't 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 it's like a miracle but i don't believe, some people say, well, god saved you to do the job for disarmament. no, that's a nonsensical interpretation. god doesn't help you for that. it was sheer, sheer luck, ithink, the people who were just half a metre away from me just incinerated. and it's 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 didn't 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 it's 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 can't help. the un humanitarian agencies to the same thing. they say they are powerless, they can't 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 wouldn't agree

with that. i think nuclear weapons, we have been very close to use of nuclear weapons several times since the cold war. but isn't 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 setsuko's 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 doesn't 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. let's 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 didn't 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 people's 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. it's 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, i'm 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 doesn't 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, isn't 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 wouldn't like north korea will think the same, or a run. why wouldn't they? we're 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 trump's 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. that's a p pa re ntly 20,000 us soldiers might die. that's apparently the reality of us public opinion today. how are you going to shift those? we have to do a lot of work. this is also what the treaty is for. it is not the end goal, the treaty is the tool to change perceptions for, as they said, for 70 years, we have had this kind of a cce pta nce 70 years, we have had this kind of acceptance of nuclear weapons and we face that all the time, people say you won't be able to change so of course people will say that. you won't be able to change so of course people will say thatm isn't you will not be able to change it, the tide is against you, donald trump is proposing to spend tens and

tens of billions of dollars upgrading and improving america's nuclear weapons capability and you can get that will lead to similar investments in russia and in china as well. so it isn'tjust sort of coping with the status quo, the tide is running against you. the results area is running against you. the results are a huge korean resistance to that. we have seen in the us senate, people are concerned about who has these weapons. people are worried that someone rational its control, someone that someone rational its control, someone who can be very easily provoked with a tweet for example, would have control of the nuclear weapons and i think that is the thing, when people start questioning who should have these weapons and when people start being worried about kim jong warned or donald trump having control over nuclear weapons, i think you are actually worried about nuclear weapons because it means that you wreck it knows. deterrence doesn't always work. you suggesting that few in the ican campaigns the equity ——a clear

equivalent is between donald trump and kim jong all? we are focused on the weapons, who has the weapons, there own right hands. setsuko, a final word to you. what did you want to say? as an interviewer, you of course have to challenge us and you are trying to be devils advocate, i suppose. i hope you don't really... iam suppose. i hope you don't really... i am trying to reflect, i am trying to reflect on seven decades... as somebody who personally experienced, as have seen an entire cityjust destroyed, glitter rated, and hundreds of thousands of people simply scorched. carbonised. and we are talking about human beings. it is totally unacceptable anyway, any time. one final question to you because we are almost out of time, we have lived through the most

extraordinary period, you know, which... i have to say the whole thing we are talking about is madness! shear madness! my god! guest, 0k... madness! shear madness! my god! guest, ok... you have had time of your 80s some years to reflect on human nature, to use it here today as one of the most passionate advocates of nuclear disarmament, you sit here today truly believing that we human beings are ever going to agree to give up the most potent weapon we have ever invented? do you believe in your heart we humans are capable of doing that?” believe in your heart we humans are capable of doing that? i do. if i don't, i cannot afford to be in the peace movement. i do. we have achieved a small goal and we are going to achieve many more before we get rid of all the nuclear weapons. so we are determined. the ultimate message is learn from history. yes. right. and take action. based on

your conviction. we have to end there but setsuko thurlow and beatrice fihn, thank you very much for being on hardtalk once again and congratulations once again for winning the nobel peace prize. it was a cold and a wintry weekend, some places seeing the most snowfall we have had in four years. we've had lots of scenes coming in from our weather watchers. this one taken in leicestershire showing the depth of the snow there. scenes like that across many central parts the country — this one coming in from shropshire. in terms of snow depths, we have had 33 centimetres of snow, sennybridge in mid wales.

widely over ten centimetres. it has caused significant disruption. and during monday morning, ice, i think, is going to be the main hazard. but during the day our attention also turns to this area of low pressure affecting portugal, spain and france, and the northern edge of that could well bring some heavy rain and strong winds into the south—east of england, perhaps a bit of snow and also sleet mixed in. but ice developing quite widely during monday morning, so for the rush hour do take care on the roads — there could well be some slippery surfaces around. let's take a look at monday morning in a bit more detail then. we are going to see that mix of rain, sleet and snow across the south—east. the winds picking up, too. but away from the south—east of england there is brighter conditions, but a very cold start to the day, certainly, with temperatures well down in the minus double—digits in one or two parts of the countryside. sunshine across northern england. watch out for some icy stretches. and across northern ireland and scotland too, we'll see a northerly breeze bringing in some snow showers through the day. as we head through monday then, eventually that rain, sleet and snow will ease

from the south—east. the winds will ease, too. away from the south—east, lots of dry weather, lots of wintry sunshine, though temperatures will struggle to get very much above freezing. we will continue to see some rain, sleet and snow showers across northern ireland and northern parts of scotland. overnight, one or two coastal showers in the far north, west and east. the bulk of the rain clears from the south—east and again, very cold into the early hours of tuesday morning. we could see those temperatures as low as —12, degrees, particularly where you have got the lying snow around and the clear skies too. some freezing fog patches likely on tuesday. they could be quite stubborn to clear through the day. but if you don't see the fog, you will see the wintry sunshine from the word go. another cold day, particularly, for central and eastern parts of the country, just one or two degrees here. slightly milder weather moving in from the west with the arrival of some cloud and some rain. that is all courtesy of this weather front through tuesday night into wednesday. that shifts its way eastwards across the country, so it will bring a spell of rain and wind during wednesday, but things will turn a little bit milder through the middle part of the week

with the return to some heavy showers and perhaps some hail around as well, but temperatures around 3—11 degrees. bye for now. welcome to newsday. i'm sharanjit leyl, in singapore. the headlines: more violent protests across the middle east after donald trump recognises jerusalem as the capital of israel. israel's prime minister says it's time for everyone to accept the change. i think the sooner the palestinians come to grips with this reality, the sooner we'll move towards peace. venezuela's president maduro says he is banning the main opposition parties from next year's presidential election, after they boycotted the latest mayoral polls. i'm kasia madera, in london. also in the programme: a stark warning from the nobel peace prize winner — could mutually assured nuclear destruction be one impulsive tantrum away? a calculated military escalation could lead to the indiscriminate murder of civilians.