jerusalem's status as the capital of israel. the un has issued a warning that peace efforts are being jeopardised by the decision. the israeli prime minister says it's time for everyone to accept the change. the venezuelan president, nicolas maduro has backed a decision to ban the country's major opposition parties from taking part in next year's presidential election, after they boycotted sunday's mayoral vote. the opposition claim the polls were an exercise designed to bolster mr maduro‘s dictatorship. a quarter of a century after the internet became widely available, the united nations international childrens fund, has issued a warning that too little is being done to protect young people, from the dangers of the digital world. unicef is recommending greater protection against online sexual abuse. now on bbc news, hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur. today i'm in oslo to meet

the winners of the nobel peace prize and this year, the award goes to the 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. 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, the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons. did you expect it? thank you for having me here. we did not expect it at all. we have been so preoccupied with the treaty and having 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 when i got the phone call, i was in complete shock, so honoured, i 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 broadcast to make sure it was real. just such an incredible honour for the whole campaign, for all the people that have fought against nuclear weapons for so long.

just wonderful. as you say that, you look at setsuko. for you, this is the most extraordinary, personal story as well because you sit 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? i just 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 it must be true. but it took me for days before

i really felt like i actually won. i think we have to start this interview as 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, 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 7 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 8 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 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, then i thought, "this is it." i was faced with death. then i started hearing 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 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, i think. 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 people just 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, li—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. 4,000 degrees celsius heat on that ground level. everybody was thirsty. 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 eyeballs. some people just collapsed onto the ground.

they had their stomach burst open, intestines 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 setsuko‘s testimony has become such a central part of yourcampaign.

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 of power. theories, war games. but this is what 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 national authorities can do to help people. we have, for example, the red cross do research on what they would do as a emergency

relief actor in terms of helping survivors. they said they would pull their staff out. they can't help. the un humanitarian agencies said 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 fact that the big world powers have maintained their nuclear weapons deterrent 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 the 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 whom 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 talk about totally destroying not just a city, notjust a regime but the whole country, for example and that is really dangerous. we have multiple threats now. we have many more actors with nuclear weapons. we have terrorists, cyber security issues, we have so many 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 us 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, with india and pakistan. 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 to you receiving this amazing prize here in oslo. i suppose more than anything else, you got the prize this year because you were in the ican, the international campaign, you 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 clean up landmines being done, saving people's lives continuously because of the treaty. 0ne practical question on how this treaty works, because its central to the work you do. you say when 50 countries have formally signed it, it will be international law. my question is, what does that really mean, if the united states, russia, china let alone countries like north korea — and we might talk about that more — if those nations do not accept this "international law", what meaning does it have? it will still impact their behaviour

and sort of shift their norms. how and why? for example, we can ask banks to divest from nuclear weapons production, and we've seen that for example with the cluster munitions convention, that the us did not participate or sign. but last year, textron, the last american producer of cluster munitions, stopped producing cluster munitions, saying there's a growing international stigma, it's bad business to keep investing in this weapon. and even if perhaps the trump administration now is trying to reverse some policies, the company have said "no, we are not going to do this." setsuko, i want to quote you something. can i — 0k, all right. well, i wanted to quote you something the nobel committee said in their citation in giving the award. they said this — "we live in a world today where the risk of nuclear weapons being used is greater than it has been for a very long time." that's right, that's right. do you think that's true? it's recent — two years scientific advances in place, there risk is 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, even 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 theory 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 koreans develop their nuclear weapons programme in recent weeks and months. we now know that they have quite

an advanced capability, notjust to weaponise but also then to miniaturise so they can put it on an intercontinental ballistic missile. we have seen those tests. now, for you as a japanese citizen — albeit a woman who now lives in canada — surely that gives you pause. i meanjapan right now is protected 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 forjapan to lose that protection? i think many serious japanese are thinking that maintaining that alliance, the relationship with the united states, which is ready to use nuclear weapons as a first strike weapon, and that makes japan more vulnerable. on a human level, what is your reaction when you hear donald trump

talk about fire and fury, the united states using...? i want to tell him he doesn't understand there are millions of human beings who could suffer from this, and i have seen so many hundred thousand people melt away, and howa human can we be? that's 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 totally u na cce pta bly. there's a verification issue here as well. i mean, 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 iran is under a very strict monitoring programme, but we know it is easy to disguise

nuclear developments, including military developments. now, i'm just going to quote you the words of one expert in this field, a nuclear physicist, peter zimmerman. he says that "in the end, some hydrogen bombs are small enough to hide in a coat closet. verification of their destruction in the absence of a yet—to—be—determined mechanism" — because he says that nothing you talk about is 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 incite proliferation. if a country like britain has spent the last 70 years arguing that nuclear weapons equal safety, of course a country like north korea is going to think the same, or iran. why wouldn't they? i think that we are never going to be able to address the proliferation challenges

until we start rejecting nuclear weapons as an acceptable means of protecting ourselves. threatening to mass murder civilians should not be a legitimate way of ensuring safety. it creates un—safety and creates a heightened risk for it. so when we address that, the verification, the technical challenges will be solved. it is the political will that needs to happen. well, it is interesting, you both talk about changing the political will but politics is also about, you know, politicians listening to and trying to appeal to publics around the world — in democracies, at least. here is something very interesting that i just saw the other day, written by a political science professor, a very respected international security expert, at stamford university in the united states. now, he surveyed opinion in donald trump's america about us attitudes to using nuclear weapons, and he found 60% of americans today would approve of killing 2 million, for example, iranian civilians,

if that would prevent a military conflict in which 20,000 us soldiers might die. that's apparently the reality of us public opinion today. how are you going to shift that? we are going 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 i said, for 70 years, we have had this kind of acceptance of nuclear weapons and we face that all the time — people just say "oh, you're never going to be able to change". so of course people are gonna say that right now. but we are changing it. but it's even just that we're never going to be able to change it. it's actually, 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 bet that will lead to similar investments in russia and in china as well. so isn'tjust sort of coping with the status quo, the tide is running against you. but there is also a huge growing resistance to that. we have seen in the us senate that people are starting to be very concerned about who has control of these nuclear weapons. people are worried that someone irrational gets control, someone who can be very easily provoked — with a tweet, for example — will have control of the nuclear weapons. and i think that that's really the key — when people start questioning who should have these weapons and when people start being worried about kim jong—un or donald trump having control over nuclear weapons, i think you are actually worried about nuclear weapons because it means that you recognise that deterrence doesn't always work. are you suggesting to me that you in the campaign, in the ican campaign, see a very clear equivalence between donald trump and kimjong—un, for example? i think we are focused on the weapons, not on who has

control of them. there are no right hands for these weapons. setsuko, i want to give a final word to you. what did you want to say? as i listen to you, of course as an interviewer, you have to challenge us, so trying to be devil's advocate, i suppose. i don't — i hope you don't really believe what you're saying! i am trying to reflect on — i am trying to reflect on seven decades... it saddens me, as somebody who personally experienced, have seen an entire cityjust destroyed, obliterated, and hundreds of thousands of people simply scorched, carbonised. and we are talking about human beings in that condition, which it is totally unacceptable anywhere, any time. one final question to you, because we are almost out of time, you have lived through the most extraordinary period, you know, which... i have to say the whole thing we are talking about is madness! sheer madness! but look...

we've got — yes? my question is this. 0k. you have had time over your 80—some years to reflect on human nature. do you sit here today, as one of the most passionate advocates of nuclear disarmament, do 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? 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. and i guess 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 both for being on hardtalk once again and congratulations once again on 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. 0vernight, 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 —i2, 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—1! degrees. bye for now. this is the briefing. i'm david eades. our top story: europe wakes up to a big freeze: with parts of the continent struggling to cope with heavy snowfalls. hundreds of flights are cancelled. venezuela's three main opposition parties are told they can't field candidates at next year's presidential election. the children at risk online — a warning that too little is being done to protect young people from digital dangers. a new era for bitcoin — as futures trading in the digital currency opens in chicago, following a wild week in the value of the crypto currency. i'll be speaking to one expert who says the move is a step to legitimising the currency.