On February 24, 2022, Russia began its military invasion of Ukraine. This military invasion seems to put us at three crossroads, reminding us of the gap between ideals and reality. At the same time, it seems to pose a serious challenge to Hiroshima, which advocates a world without nuclear weapons. Will Hiroshima continue to be "Hiroshima" that plays this special role? How do the people of Hiroshima respond to this important and weighty proposition? Will Hiroshima and Nagasaki continue to pursue and appeal for the ideal of a world without nuclear weapons even if many ordinary citizens choose the reality that Hiroshima does not necessarily want and, in a sense, are isolated? Now, perhaps, the resolve for that isolation is also being questioned.

　First, I would like to consider three divergent points. The first is the attitude toward nuclear weapons. This is a watershed moment in terms of whether to rely on nuclear deterrence in response to the threat of nuclear weapons or to pursue international norms such as the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons that aims to realize a world without nuclear weapons.

　The second is a divergence on the pros and cons of nuclear power. How should we consider the idea that a country needs to provide its own energy, even with nuclear power, and in that case, how should we consider the threat of being overrun and endangered, as is now the case with the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant?

　The third is the attitude toward the principle of international cooperation. This is a turning point for the international community, which has continued to seek international cooperation through diplomacy since the end of World War II, and whether or not it will return to a society based on force.

　These turning points lie between the ideal and the reality. I cannot help but feel that we are always floating between ideals and reality, coexisting with them, and standing on a delicate balance between the two. Many accept this as natural, while others may find that it is a dilemma. In considering these issues regarding nuclear weapons, on the one hand a world without nuclear weapons, and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which is an international treaty to realize such a world, can be seen as the ideal. On the other hand, the Japan-U.S. security arrangement, the nuclear umbrella, and nuclear deterrence can be seen as reality.

　Since 2020, we have been conducting a joint research study on students' views on peace with the Yomiuri Shimbun and Associate Professor van der Does of the Hiroshima University Center for Peace. There, too, the gap between ideal and reality was highlighted. To cite just a few examples, in a 2021 survey of about 1,000 students at eight universities in Japan, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki Universities, just under 90% said that Japan should join (sign or ratify) the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, while more than half said that the possibility of nuclear abolition is low. About 40% expressed understanding of Japan's dependence on the U.S. nuclear umbrella (Noriyuki Kawano and Luli van der Does, "Preliminary Results of the 76^th Anniversary Online Survey on the Students' Perceptions of Peace", Hiroshima Peace Science 43, 129-143, 2021). Furthermore, in a 2022 survey conducted after Russia's military invasion, about 80% of respondents said that nuclear weapons themselves need to be eliminated or reduced, while about 75% of all respondents said that the future use of nuclear weapons is highly likely. This is up 13 points from the same survey the previous year. Also, more than 80% of respondents said that Japan's dependence on the U.S. nuclear umbrella is "understandable" or "inevitable" (Yomiuri Shimbun, July 31 and August 1, 2022). In this way, Russia's military aggression is making the gap between our ideals and reality greater and the conflict between the two more serious. This may imply that there is no small possibility that the country will turn to reality, that is, reliance on nuclear deterrence and increased military spending in the future.

　The coexistence of ideals and reality may be a natural feeling for many Japanese people. On the other hand, this is a dilemma for the hibakusha who continue to lead the idea of a world without nuclear weapons. According to an Asahi Shimbun survey conducted in 2015, more than 90% of hibakusha expressed a desire for a world without nuclear weapons, while at the same time, more than 40% said the Japanese government's position under the nuclear umbrella was "unavoidable" (Asahi Shimbun, August 2, 2015). It is easy to imagine that this emotional conflict has become more serious with the recent military invasion.

　Is there a future for a society without ideals? Many would argue that talking about a utopian society is an attempt to escape reality. But if this is the case, why was the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which can be said to be the culmination of the wisdom of civil society, adopted by the United Nations with the support of more than 120 countries and brought into force? It is easy to dismiss ideals as impractical. However, is it acceptable to leave to the next generation a society with no ideals and no discussion of ideals? In light of the civil society movement that led to the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, it clearly shows how important the various activities of such civil society, and even its maturation, are. Individual thoughts will be fostered and matured within civil society to become a large mass, contributing to the realization of international peace. Peace is no longer solely the responsibility of the state, but also of citizens and civil society. This is why we have high expectations for Mayors for Peace, which has more than 8,000 member cities.

　Japan is a country that should know well the pain of war, having lost more than 3 million people in World War II and suffered tremendous damage from the atomic bomb. Furthermore, the Constitution of Japan states that "the right of belligerency of the State shall not be recognized". Japan, the only country to have suffered a nuclear attack in war, and the A-bombed cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, have a responsibility to continue to show to the world the pain caused by the war and the atomic bombings. Japan, which has tended to view many wars and conflicts as "somebody else's problem", has begun to discuss increasing defense spending in addition to providing Ukraine with bulletproof vests and other defense equipment. Where will the peace of this country, based on that lost war, go from here?

　We have experienced a pandemic caused by the new coronavirus and we are witnessing day after day the Russian military invasion of Ukraine. The highly anticipated NPT Review Conference in August 2022 failed to adopt a draft final document. The world is in the midst of upheaval and chaos. It is precisely in these times that we must once again calmly reexamine what peace means, talk about ideals, and work to build a society that strives toward these ideals.

　Hiroshima, which advocates a world without nuclear weapons and lasting world peace and aims to become an International City of Peace and Culture, should play a central role in building such a society. And I cannot help but think that this is necessary if Hiroshima is to remain the "Hiroshima" that plays a special role.