Dr. Hughes, you were appointed as president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in 2022, succeeding Dr. David Krieger. What inspired you to engage in the movement for nuclear abolition?

From the outset, I would like to express my deepest respect for two great individuals, Dr. Daisaku Ikeda and Dr. David Krieger, who made significant contributions to a better and more peaceful world. We must continue to follow the path that these two great men - who both passed away in 2023, - have walked.

There are two personal reasons that have led me to engage in the movement for nuclear abolition. First, I am strongly committed to this cause as a scientist. Among other contributions, I co-led research at Columbia University investigating the environmental impacts of nuclear testing. Since scientists created nuclear weapons, scientists must be involved in their elimination. As a scientist, I strongly believe this.

Another important aspect is that I am a mother. I have three children and I wish for them a lifetime of happiness and joy, not nuclear annihilation and suffering. I firmly believe that the best thing I can leave to my children is a world without nuclear weapons.

Finally, I was born and raised in a part of former Yugoslavia that is now the Republic of Serbia. I came to the United States 30 years ago as a foreign exchange student and was fortunate to be supported in my studies at some of the best universities in the world; the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and Stanford University. At that time, Yugoslavia was falling apart amidst a horrifying civil war, which deeply impacted me. I believe that people who leave one country and live in another inevitably start to think about goals and ideals from the perspective of humanity rather than merely a national perspective.

In this context, I was very encouraged by one of the important themes discussed in the published dialogue Choose Hope between Dr. Ikeda and Dr. Krieger. It emphasized the need to shift our thinking from “national interests” to “humanity’s interests.”

Currently, there is an increasing threat of nuclear weapons use globally. The Doomsday Clock, which symbolizes the remaining time until human extinction and is announced annually by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, now stands at 90 seconds, the closest it has ever been.

I have significant concerns about the current state of the world. We are likely facing the most dangerous period since the end of the Cold War or even arguably since the end of World War II.

There are major conflicts ongoing in Ukraine and Gaza. These conflicts involve nuclear-armed nations either directly or indirectly, creating an incredibly dangerous situation.

For instance, the United States and Russia have 11,000 nuclear warheads between them, most of which are more powerful than the atomic bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If one third of the nuclear warheads held by the U.S. and Russia were used, it is estimated that 360 million people would die from the immediate impact.

Moreover, the fires caused by nuclear explosions would produce soot, covering the atmosphere and blocking incoming sunlight, leading to a global temperature drop that would result in the so-called “nuclear winter.” This would further lead to agricultural collapse and food production decline worldwide, leading to an estimated 5 billion people dying of starvation.

The use of nuclear weapons would not only destroy cities but essentially the entire planet. This is why, in 1985, U.S. President Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev issued a joint statement declaring, “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

In a world with nuclear weapons, peace is not only a moral imperative but an existential requirement for the survival of humanity and possibly all of life on the planet.

In his proposal calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons, Ikeda once wrote, “The real enemy is the way of thinking that justifies nuclear weapons. It is our readiness to see others eliminated when they stand in the way of the fulfillment of our desires and ambitions.” What are your thoughts on the arguments used to justify nuclear weapons, such as nuclear deterrence?

Nuclear deterrence is the argument that as long as a country has the will to use nuclear weapons to attack other countries, it will not be attacked by others. It is often explained as a method of protecting national security.

However, I would completely reject this characterization of nuclear deterrence. For example, the Republic of South Africa, which once had nuclear weapons, completely eliminated them in 1990. Despite the absence of nuclear weapons, no country has attempted to attack South Africa.

Furthermore, it is crucial to emphasize that the world is on the brink of nuclear weapons use. This year, investigative journalist Annie Jacobsen published Nuclear War: A Scenario. The scenario envisioned describes how the use of nuclear weapons would lead to a chain of retaliatory attacks, quickly escalating into nuclear war.

Remarkably, the entire nuclear war, including the retaliatory exchanges, would last just 72 minutes. Unlike conventional wars that last for extended periods, nuclear war would take just over an hour.

This is not exaggerated fiction but information based on interviews with experts and former government officials who fully understand what would happen if nuclear deterrence were to fail.

To comment on this scenario, I borrow the words of renowned peace activist, the late Daniel Ellsberg, who once referred to nuclear weapon policies as “dizzyingly insane and immoral.”

Once nuclear weapons are used, this would immediately lead to nuclear war, as mentioned earlier, resulting in hundreds of millions of direct deaths and billions of deaths from starvation afterward. I believe there should be no logic that justifies the annihilation of all humanity.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres has stated that the reason nuclear war has not yet occurred is that “we have been incredibly lucky so far. But luck is not a strategy.” Indeed, the fact that nuclear weapons have not been used is not due to nuclear deterrence but mere “luck.”

The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 was the greatest crisis during the Cold War, almost leading to a full-scale nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union. The reason nuclear war has not occurred yet is due to a series of fortunate events.

In 1983, a Soviet computer mistakenly gave notification that an intercontinental ballistic missile had been launched from the US. Fortunately, the Soviet officer in charge judged it to be a false alarm, but if this false information had been reported to higher-ups, it is highly likely that a retaliatory nuclear strike would have occurred.

Accidents of mistakenly dropping nuclear weapons have also occurred, and even now, about 50 nuclear warheads have been left abandoned on the seabed around the world.

Thus, the risk of nuclear war being triggered by mere accidents, misunderstandings, or errors in judgment exists. The “luck” we have had so far can end at any time.

So far, the possession of nuclear weapons has been perceived as a “symbol of power” for a country. We must change this to a “symbol of shame.” Any country that possesses nuclear weapons should be ashamed of having the capability to destroy human civilization, rather than being proud of it.

The origin of Soka Gakkai’s peace movement lies in the "Declaration Calling for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons" issued by the second president, Josei Toda, in 1957.

Through Dr. Ikeda’s writings, I learned about the "Declaration Calling for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons" issued by the second president, Josei Toda, in 1957, and was greatly inspired. This declaration, aiming for nuclear abolition and preceding the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) that came into effect in 2021, is, in my opinion, its forerunner.

No matter how dark the world is, there is always light. In these difficult times, that light is the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. This treaty is something that Soka Gakkai International (SGI) and our Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) have continuously been involved in from its conception to its current state.

The treaty prohibits all activities related to nuclear weapons, including their use, production, possession, transfer, and threat of use.

Furthermore, the treaty includes provisions for assisting victims of nuclear weapon use and nuclear tests and for restoring contaminated environments. These are areas in which civil society, including SGI and NAPF, have been deeply involved. The implementation of such a treaty is indeed a remarkable achievement for humanity.

Of course, the ultimate goal is not the treaty itself but the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

I believe Japan and the United States have important roles to play in nuclear abolition. Japan has experienced the catastrophic consequences of atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The United States was the first country to develop nuclear weapons and is the only country to have used them against cities inhabited by civilians. The United States also wrote the playbook for the nuclear testing era, which has led to the devastation of peoples and communities around the world.

In the US, the common belief is that the atomic bombings contributed to the early end of the war and saved lives. However, the atomic bombings, which took many innocent lives, are clearly morally reprehensible, including due to the unique way that radiation exposure has impacted the health and well-being of the survivors. Moreover, history shows that the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not really the end of the “Hot War,” but rather the beginning of the Cold War.

Today, the world faces serious threats such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and the spread of infectious diseases. What these threats have in common is the need for international cooperation and response.

However, in a world without peace, in a world with war and in a world lacking trust between nations, we cannot adequately address such global issues. The desire to prevent was and nuclear annihilation also stems from the recognition that this is a critically important time for global cooperation.

In his dialogue with Dr. Krieger, Ikeda stated, “Human spiritual strength can defeat that authority [that causes war and tragedy]. Inherent in human life is the strength of hope that can pioneer an epoch of peace.” He urged, “If hope is wanting, we must create it for ourselves. Once we have done so, the great wave of peace can swell and spread freely..” How can we put Choose Hope, the title of their published dialogue, into practice?

Dr. Krieger once advised his daughter, Dr. Mara Sweeney, to "find one enjoyable thing to do every day." He encouraged her to look for joy and do something fun every day. I believe this leads to the choice of hope. Choosing hope means finding and choosing joy and humanity in everyday life.

Dr. Ikeda and Dr. Krieger consistently practiced this approach and never gave up on their hope for a better world. This fact greatly inspires me.

Now is the time for us to choose hope, as they showed us, in order to overcome distrust, conflict and violence, and to find a way to build genuine cooperation amongst nations and peoples.

If I were a pessimist, I wouldn't be able to engage in the nuclear abolition movement. I choose optimism and hope, and I firmly believe that nuclear abolition is possible, which is why I am committed to this movement.

I am inspired by the efforts of the people in Japan towards nuclear abolition. In March of this year, I was very pleased to see many young people participating in the Future Action Festival in Japan which focused on themes such as nuclear abolition. Young people are our future, and their involvement is essential for realizing a world without nuclear weapons.

I will continue to cooperate with the members of SGI and follow the path paved by the great pioneers, Dr. Ikeda and Dr. Krieger. As long as we continue to choose hope, we will never reach the end of the road but will always embark on the beginning of a new path that leads toward peace.