mutually assured destruction to keep peace is the drive to get rid of nuclear weapons realistic and all the listings of hiroshima removed well enough today. burning exactly are really great to have you on our program welcome to thank you very much so. lots of relevant issues to discuss with you. so far your country is the only country that has suffered from the use of the nuclear weapons understandable why japanese people are so adamant on abolishing nuclear arms. but you say that those advocating nuclear disarmament are realistic. you really think so i mean how realistic because nuclear states including your biggest partner united states opposed that well i say. you know realistic because. or argument or.

you know the goal for abolishment of nuclear weapons is based on the reality of what happens to beings. it's use when it's actually used so we know the reality of the use of it and sometimes. you know deterrence. strategy they're all discussed on paper you know there are certain assumptions there are certain assumptions if this number if we have this number you know to deter. actions and cetera. well they're you know other too. but. you know mostly it's a perception idea based. no standing

there are you talking about those who are actually supporters of the terror plot i mean we didn't have a war for the last seventy years thanks to terrance you don't think that's reason enough to think that that's a good thing you know well deterrence know this or know having a war or know having a large number of casualty is not necessarily just because. u.s. and russia you know as a country has. nuclear weapons there are so many other factors that. deter the war. well i'm talking about you know. nuclear deterrence in deterrence is something that's probably this is terry. but i'm talking about nuclear deterrence what the added value of nuclear deterrence. you know to conventional deterrence in other dictators

so all of this fact that it should never ever take place because it's so horrid that no one would ever want to out that ever happen again but done is based on the assumption that there is no mistake there is no misjudgment there is no accident you know there are a lot of assumptions that current. you know deterrence is based on. historically actually it's been proven wrong you know there has been many accidents. many misjudgments almost lead to actual nuclear war which is really risky situation so this nuclear powers that the global powers at this point they're all very wary of each other that's why they don't really want to give up their nukes how do you see this technically happening

if they were ever to happen like they all should give it up at the same time. well of course the process need to be carefully designed and i don't think it's going to happen tonight that horrible. so what we need. to seriously look into. then of course the situation is very different in. deterrence against what you know already did turn against him where. is a very important question and you have to. you know dig into details and try to come up with the process. in each situation to reduce nuclear weapons and finally eliminate it you've said it yourself is

different they all have their reasons and yet nuclear weapons are only a manifestation of global political problems that each country has can you really sickly get rid of the nuclear weapons without addressing those problems because you know they're intertwined together i mean pakistan is afraid of a bigger india and doesn't want to be the next i'd say israel is surrounded by hostile arab states so unless you address those political problems you can't really talk about getting rid of nukes well no i don't think so. first you know deterrence is nuclear deterrence is different from deterrence so we're talking about nuclear deterrence and the added value of nuclear deterrence and if you carefully look into each. you know situation. we should be able to find the new equilibrium. you know strategy extract

stability is equilibrium in game theory. and there is a multiple. possible multiple equilibrium usually and based on conditions or assumptions. and. if we could find the way to move that you know equilibrium to other position which is less costly or namely equilibrium with nuclear weapon. months more economical. it probably lists risk so what i'm saying is why. not we just say all because we have this conflict. having nuclear weapon is something. that is

taken granted taken us granted but this look forward. with or you know ways to move to leave room to a new one you know and of course i don't say it's easy. and there are some measures probably. multiple party. needs to agree upon. but i don't think you've seen possible we just have to make that therefore stop what do you think of the nuclear weapons ban treaty adopted by the united nations can it ever go beyond declaring intent to actually have an actual impact but it's true that nuclear weapons countries must be involved in the process otherwise i mean it's only the nuclear weapon countries that can reduce or. eliminate nuclear weapons so

finally they have to be involved and it's you know about the process again you know we involve the nuclear weapon states so you have this in this. global peace plan in motion and i looked at it and i have to say that i admired the idea that. your devotion to it. do you have my doubts about how to promote what you stand for i mean conferences and rock concerts you know i cover politics a lot of wars a lot and you know peace doesn't come through concerts and conferences so. how do you make sure that you can impact through this program well you should be aware that something speech comes through music concerts too that i agree so you know those activities. you know there's some. targeted public you know like

increasing public awareness or some of the d.v.d.'s are targeted more experts. you know like round table talk we have been here a few months this is. talk among experts and polish polled c makers. about what we can do so you know. we think. the final goal of course is to eliminate nuclear weapons but. who. eliminates it is actually the leader of the new good working country and the structure that supports the leader. like the bureaucracy in the expert system and also public. the basic foundation for the

system so we are trying to. find ways to reach in each you know how you know how effective each action is we have to try many things which is you know this is very complicated and very significant issue so it doesn't happen. again you know. so we're trying to do. whatever we can in the find more effective way. to achieve our goal we're going to take a short break right now when we're back we'll continue talking to governor you jackie will discuss more who is right behind the policy or those who want to stay with us.

not that i'm going to learn how to not that i'm not out of luck though they want that i'm not out of the money out of the money the day of the night actually. this was a good time to. try to move there i'm. not that i want to give up my little body not for not there again for x.

channing and the old people we believe this other obedient. little of my kids i don't want them up a side john of authority of the moment of total mother how do it all accusers are there a lot of them on the little white community will be looking out the things i don't want to put out a lot more which party or i don't know the mother of one of the. four men are sitting in a car when the fifth good shot to my head. all four different versions of what. one of them is on the death row there's no way you could have done it there's no possible way because the list did not shoot around a corner. and

we're back with governor as you sat here governor so there are some serious steps towards nuclear a militia going on in your neighboring north korea out i wonder. what you think about that because it has announced a suspension of nuclear missile ballistic test and shutting down a nuclear test site. this is widely seen as a positive step towards nuclear zation do you think kim jong un is actually not going to make any nuclear tests anymore well we cannot have a conclusion yet we have to see you know we have to see their actions. you know being. the tree so many times. through

the past and appreciations knows korea so what's important is. you know it's been one of the word is used. you know reversible. how. reversible you know how to prove it and you know of course. in the czech it. very important issue but we need to do that to. actually believe most korea denuclearize so you have an arsonist south korea's that are meeting right now and the talks between america and north korea are being set up and all of the partners south korea north korea south korea america japan they're saying that the ultimate goal is to see completely denuclearized north korea but wait a logical question is why would give up his nuclear arsenal i mean why would all of

a sudden destroy completely something that he's building up for a decade. is exactly why we have to really see actions. i think. you know. motivations of course. one extending. the current regime. and if he believes. having a nuclear. is more beneficial to extending their regime he may hold on to it and if he believes. giving it up is more beneficial. for extending their regime i think he will so. we have to prepare an environment that he believes

in. that you know. so for he knew they were precise in your opinion what should he be getting. in exchange of giving up then you know what he's saying is security assurance and denuclearization when you know there might be i mean this security assurance there might be more concrete. requests are required meant conditions like having no. u.s. force in peninsula or something. so i don't know they will come out but you know it's. very difficult. to to predict now you know what conditions he would give up the group and at this point we need to see and also. the timing i will discuss the timing because

japan's foreign minister says that north korea should abolish nuclear arms by two thousand and twenty. do you think that's a realistic goal time wise because i mean it took two years of tops to just stop the iranian nuclear program they didn't even have an actual weapon i mean how can this diplomacy with north korea work faster than with iran. you know whether it's realistic or too fast or. too slow you know i hope you feet by twenty twenty that's very welcome. to the extent. it's possible everyone should make every effort to to to achieve that. you know. i'd say there's no too early for that so. i don't know if it's achievable or not but

at least you could try so like i mentioned south korea america are going to sit down and talk to north korea as of now japan has been about it to those talks do you think it should be part of those talks or what can they bring to the table. well. you know. you know a lot of fools in the. entire sitting an entire condition or sitting the entire environment or longer process of you know post agreement to. i don't know a this point. can do but at least you know carefully. you know see

a u.s. korea's. movement or actions and think you know i'm not in the government position but. you know relieve the pressure on north korea on this we actually see that. for actions it's also quite interesting to see what's going to happen to your country's security because japan has been relying on us for protection for decades and now trump is saying its allies in asia pacific should rely more and more on their own resources their own security and then you know we have personally heard the japanese government saying that slowly japan should be expanding its own japanese military do you think it's time to rethink the security council. japan well you know i don't think the big picture will change we'll continue.

with the united states and of course we will have close relationship with korea. and other. some of the other. countries too. but in that balance or some roles could be redefined. well for example. you know we. like to see japan to be u.s. nuclear nuclear deterrence. not the deterrence as a whole but nuclear deterrence. will give a better position in terms of promoting nuclear. nation or nuclear disarmament. and. for example if you

look carefully we recently received a report paper from you need year. research institute. if you go back to the first question. if we look carefully. at the. situation. nuclear deterrence against north korea is not necessary. you know. but i mean no. you know that american nuclear terrorists in a way is a guarantee that no one attacks japan is well known well known though not necessarily because you know for example north korea. their motivation is to. not to be invaded not to be. attacked to destroy the regime. is that you keep interrupting you but i'll forget

to ask you this say you did it feels like you don't think the north korea is actually capable of attacking a neighbor one day on and they are they are capable of attacking neighbor but whether they will do is a different question you don't think they'll do they think they use the nukes just to keep the regime in place that's it. they feel you know really oppressed. or you know. they feel there is an immediate. very imminent danger of being attacked but they know that once they use a nuclear weapons that's basically the end there is seen no. because there would be there would be fight for about and you know there's so much species you don't feel like i just have to go to the question because you didn't quite answer

you don't feel like you need american nuclear deterrent because you don't feel like north korea is actually about to attack someone it's more about keeping its regime in tahoe it's not about feeling you know. it's not about feeling it's not me saying this but i'm talking about disunity and people paper. from the north chris point of view their nuclear deterrence know what their deterrent against is attack. from us to destroy the regime and if they attacked first you know it's. very certain that their regime will collapse so their real possibility is there

a high probability that north korea is going to attack you know from themselves what we're talking about at this point. if you were. again talking about space is to destroy the north korea's nuclear capability you know they need to use so many nuclear weapons if they use nuclear weapons and is very realistic. it's going to cause so much radiation issues not only was in those korea south korea china and russia too they're all. in the original question was that japan always enjoyed america's protection because we don't have the military security system in place to protect your country now that trump is saying that you should rely more on your own resources do you think japan needs an actual army and

actual security system in place. i don't say we don't have at all we have a conventional defense system to certain extent and we're partnering with states my view for example you know. nuclear deterrence against north korea we may have. meant we could be out. to change. the rules on the balance right so there could be a new balance in new. thinking or a security. system i just have to question that sensitive issue you know nice perception. of japan in general so the american president has a visit here ashima but do you see a situation where

a japanese prime minister for instance visits non-germane because the chinese are saying you know. so anti nuclear complain in japan of which you are part of of course is sort of a way to whitewash japan's role in world war two and not fair because you can't discuss the bombing without the reasons behind the bombing do you do you see a situation where your prime minister would actually visit nineteen like american president hiroshima yeah it may be possible. you know. and of course depends environment and context if dot is. in the core of the context. think you'd be difficult for a prime minister to go but the party's out of context you know it may be he may be able to go. all right thank you very much for this interview you wish you all the best of a lot and have a nice rest of the same question thank you you thank

. the easy. to move. willing to do not enough they would see. it as a way of all's from some of you. i came back to the communities and people we obvious found in on the road look out for me oh look out is all bible gone towards him.

like. say. she's going. to save money doesn't that give us all that. don't. know we're going to this. love doesn't cut doesn't it also toppi me in my life. i see him on have to die. you know my point i wanted to. ask but i. think.

your so your hideaway lost his musket. but the pressure on us i don't mean. joining us as you know but it was you know. you know just i mean my most wanted i'm already but it was just going to go even. if it up and i might just get it on. one of. my family. just but that's already yes equestrian he thought of getting.

a second day of demonstrations in the german city of kemet softer local was stabbed to death an incident involving people of various nationalities according to authorities a similar concerns over a migrant integration rise in neighboring france we look at how the issue is being handled in western europe. also this hour the attorney for donald trump's former lawyer backtracks on his groundbreaking claims about the information his client could provide to prove trump russia collusion. and un investigators say top military officials in myanmar should be prosecuted for genocide and crimes against humanity.