Mankind&#39;s destruction caused by a nuclear war is just one &quot;impulsive tantrum away&quot;, the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), warned on Sunday as the United States and North Korea exchange threats over the nation&#39;s nuclear tests.

&quot;Will it be the end of nuclear weapons, or will it be the end of us?&quot; ICAN head Beatrice Fihn said in a speech after receiving the peace prize on behalf of the anti-nuclear group.

Tensions on the Korean peninsula have spiralled as Pyongyang has in recent months ramped up its number of missiles and nuclear tests.

North Korea&#39;s leader Kim Jong-Un has exchanged warlike threats with US President Donald Trump, who has ordered a military show of force.

&quot;The only rational course of action is to cease living under the conditions where our mutual destruction is only one impulsive tantrum away,&quot; Fihn added.&nbsp;

ICAN, a coalition of hundreds of NGOs around the world, has worked for a treaty banning nuclear weapons which was adopted in July by 122 countries.

The text was weakened by the absence of the nine nuclear powers among the signatories.

In an apparent snub of the ICAN-backed treaty, the three western nuclear powers -- the US, France and Britain -- broke with tradition by sending second-ranking diplomats rather than their ambassadors to Sunday&#39;s ceremony.

&#39;Bruised ego&#39;

Supporters of nuclear weapons argue that they serve as a deterrent for starting a major conflict as it would guarantee mutual destruction for the nations involved.&nbsp;

&quot;They are a madman&#39;s gun held permanently to our temple,&quot; Fihn said.

&quot;These weapons were supposed to keep us free, but they deny us our freedoms.&quot;

Berit Reiss-Andersen, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, said in her lecture during the ceremony that ICAN&#39;s &quot;message resonates with millions of people who perceive that the threat of nuclear war is greater than it has been for a long time, not least due to the situation in North Korea.&quot;

Senior UN envoy Jeffrey Feltman on Saturday warned there was a grave risk that a miscalculation could trigger conflict with Pyongyang and urged the reclusive state to keep communication channels open.

Kim and Trump have taunted each other in recent months, with the US President pejoratively dubbing his rival &quot;Little Rocket Man&quot; and a &quot;sick puppy&quot;.

&quot;A moment of panic or carelessness, a misconstrued comment or bruised ego could easily lead us unavoidably to the destruction of entire cities,&quot; Fihn said.

Hiroshima remembered&nbsp;

Several survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings, which killed more than 220,000 people 72 years ago, attended the ceremony in the Oslo City Hall.

One of them, Setsuko Thurlow, received the Nobel on behalf of ICAN jointly with Fihn.&nbsp;

Speaking to AFP ahead of the ceremony, Thurlow recalled the horrific aftermath of the first atomic bomb in Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, when she was 13 years old.

Thurlow described corpses lying on the ground, the injured and dying calling for help and the survivors looking like &quot;a procession of ghosts&quot;.

&quot;The hair was standing up and they were all burned on the skin and their flesh was hanging from their bones,&quot; she said.

&quot;Some were carrying their eyeballs. It just was like hell on earth,&quot; added the 85-year-old who now lives in Canada and uses a wheelchair.

&#39;Heed our warning&#39;&nbsp;

Although the number of nuclear weapons has dropped since the end of the Cold War, there are still around 15,000 atomic bombs on earth.

&quot;Listen to our testimony. Heed our warning. And know that your actions are consequential,&quot; Thurlow said during her speech at the ceremony, referring to the leaders of nuclear-armed nations.

The Nobel prizes in literature, physics, chemistry, medicine and economics were to be awarded later on Sunday at a separate ceremony in Stockholm.

Each prize consists of a diploma, a gold medal and a cheque for nine million Swedish kroner (900,000 euros).

'Will it be the end of nuclear weapons, or will it be the end of us?' ICAN head Beatrice Fihn said in a speech Sunday after receiving the peace prize

Mankind's destruction caused by a nuclear war is just one "impulsive tantrum away", the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), warned on Sunday as the United States and North Korea exchange threats over the nation's nuclear tests. "Will it be the end of nuclear weapons, or will it be the end of us?" ICAN head Beatrice Fihn said in a speech after receiving the peace prize on behalf of the anti-nuclear group. Tensions on the Korean peninsula have spiralled as Pyongyang has in recent months ramped up its number of missiles and nuclear tests. North Korea's leader Kim Jong-Un has exchanged warlike threats with US President Donald Trump, who has ordered a military show of force. "The only rational course of action is to cease living under the conditions where our mutual destruction is only one impulsive tantrum away," Fihn added. ICAN, a coalition of hundreds of NGOs around the world, has worked for a treaty banning nuclear weapons which was adopted in July by 122 countries. The text was weakened by the absence of the nine nuclear powers among the signatories. In an apparent snub of the ICAN-backed treaty, the three western nuclear powers -- the US, France and Britain -- broke with tradition by sending second-ranking diplomats rather than their ambassadors to Sunday's ceremony. 'Bruised ego' Supporters of nuclear weapons argue that they serve as a deterrent for starting a major conflict as it would guarantee mutual destruction for the nations involved. "They are a madman's gun held permanently to our temple," Fihn said. "These weapons were supposed to keep us free, but they deny us our freedoms." Berit Reiss-Andersen, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, said in her lecture during the ceremony that ICAN's "message resonates with millions of people who perceive that the threat of nuclear war is greater than it has been for a long time, not least due to the situation in North Korea." Senior UN envoy Jeffrey Feltman on Saturday warned there was a grave risk that a miscalculation could trigger conflict with Pyongyang and urged the reclusive state to keep communication channels open. Kim and Trump have taunted each other in recent months, with the US President pejoratively dubbing his rival "Little Rocket Man" and a "sick puppy". "A moment of panic or carelessness, a misconstrued comment or bruised ego could easily lead us unavoidably to the destruction of entire cities," Fihn said. Hiroshima remembered Several survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings, which killed more than 220,000 people 72 years ago, attended the ceremony in the Oslo City Hall. One of them, Setsuko Thurlow, received the Nobel on behalf of ICAN jointly with Fihn. Speaking to AFP ahead of the ceremony, Thurlow recalled the horrific aftermath of the first atomic bomb in Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, when she was 13 years old. Thurlow described corpses lying on the ground, the injured and dying calling for help and the survivors looking like "a procession of ghosts". "The hair was standing up and they were all burned on the skin and their flesh was hanging from their bones," she said. "Some were carrying their eyeballs. It just was like hell on earth," added the 85-year-old who now lives in Canada and uses a wheelchair. 'Heed our warning' Although the number of nuclear weapons has dropped since the end of the Cold War, there are still around 15,000 atomic bombs on earth. "Listen to our testimony. Heed our warning. And know that your actions are consequential," Thurlow said during her speech at the ceremony, referring to the leaders of nuclear-armed nations. The Nobel prizes in literature, physics, chemistry, medicine and economics were to be awarded later on Sunday at a separate ceremony in Stockholm. Each prize consists of a diploma, a gold medal and a cheque for nine million Swedish kroner (900,000 euros).

Nobel Peace Prize winners warn nuclear war is an 'impulsive tantrum away'

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2017 was awarded to the&nbsp;International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons an advocacy group that has worked to draw attention to their &ldquo;catastrophic humanitarian consequences.&rdquo;

Every year, the winners of the Nobel Prizes are announced to great fanfare. And none receives more scrutiny than the&nbsp;Nobel Peace Prize.

With good reason. The other Nobel Prizes are given to people who have already changed our world &ndash; for their remarkable accomplishments. But, in the case of the Nobel Peace Prize, the hope of the Nobel Committee is to change the world through its very conferral. It, therefore, rewards&nbsp;aspiration more than achievement.

Francis Sejersted, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee from 1991-1999, once noted&nbsp;with pride the Nobel Peace Prize&rsquo;s political ambitions:

<blockquote>
&ldquo;The Committee also takes the possible positive effects of its choices into account [because] &hellip; Nobel wanted the Prize to have political effects. Awarding a Peace Prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act.&rdquo;
</blockquote>

So, has the Nobel Peace Prize changed the world?

Expecting the prize to bring world peace would be an unfair standard to apply. However, my research shows that the winners and their causes have rarely profited from the award. Even worse, the prize has at times made it harder for them to make the leap from aspiration to achievement.

History of the peace award

The Nobel Peace Prize was first awarded in 1901, five years after Alfred Nobel&rsquo;s death. Nobel&rsquo;s will&nbsp;defined peace narrowly and focused on candidates&rsquo; accomplishments: The prize was to be awarded &ldquo;to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.&rdquo;

The committee initially remained true to Nobel&rsquo;s charge. Between 1901 and 1945, over three-quarters of the prizes (33 of 43) went to those who promoted interstate peace and disarmament.

Since the Second World War, however, less than one-quarter of the prizes have gone to promoting interstate peace and disarmament. Just seven of the 37 winners since 1989 fall into this category. Another 11 awards have sought to encourage ongoing peace processes.

But many of these processes had borne little fruit at the time or still had a long road ahead. Consider that three of the most prominent winners in this category were then Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Nonetheless, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is <a href="https://www.vox.com/cards/israel-palestine/peace-process">today in a coma</a>.

Perhaps for this reason, in the last decade, the committee has given just two awards to encourage peace processes. In 2008 Martti Ahtisaari, former president of Finland, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his various achievements in Namibia, Kosovo and Aceh. In 2016, Colombia&rsquo;s President Juan Manuel Santos&nbsp;was honored with the Nobel in the hope that the prize would help push through his peace deal with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) rebels, even though a popular referendum had just rejected it, and thereby end his country&rsquo;s half-century-long civil war.

The striking change since the 1970s, and especially since the end of the Cold War, has been the Nobel Peace Prize&rsquo;s growing focus on promoting domestic political change.

<figure class="align-left "><img alt="" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/188805/width237/file-20171004-6724-16mw6mf.jpg" />
<figcaption>Albert Luthuli, winner of the 1960 Nobel Peace Prize. AP Photo</figcaption>
</figure>

&nbsp;

Between 1946 and 1970, the prize was awarded just twice to dissidents and activists like the South African leader Albert Luthuli, who led a nonviolent struggle against apartheid in the 1960s, and the&nbsp;American civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr..&nbsp;Between 1971 and 1988, such figures received the prize five times. Between 1989 and 2016, more than 40 percent of all winners fell into this category.

The rate has been even higher in the last decade: 57 percent of Nobel Peace Prize laureates since 2007 have been activists and advocates for equality, liberty and human development like educating women and stopping child labor.

These are admirable values. But their connection to interstate, and intrastate, conflict is indirect at best and tenuous at worst.

Does it bring global attention to issues?

The Nobel Peace Prize&rsquo;s defenders insist that the prize works in subtle but perceptible ways to advance the winners&rsquo; causes. They say it attracts media attention, bolsters the winners and their supporters, and even focuses international pressure.

But there&rsquo;s little evidence that the Nobel Peace Prize brings sustained global attention.

First of all, in many instances it is hard to tell whether the prize has made any difference, because the media glare was already intense. For example, in 2005, when the committee honored the International Atomic Energy Agency and its director general, Mohammed El Baradei, nuclear proliferation was already of great concern. In other cases &ndash; such as South Africa&rsquo;s transition from apartheid, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the troubles in Northern Ireland &ndash; the prize made little noticeable difference to international media coverage.

It is true that in those few cases where coverage was not already strong, there have been occasional successes. For instance, I found&nbsp;that the committee&rsquo;s decision to hand the award to Aung San Suu Kyi in 1991 did draw attention to the plight of Myanmar.

But, in general, my research found little evidence that winning the Nobel Peace Prize boosts international media coverage of the winner&rsquo;s cause beyond the short run.

Putting activists in peril

Of greater concern is that, when the Nobel Peace Prize goes to promote political and social change &ndash; as it has so often in recent decades &ndash; it can have very real and detrimental effects on the movements and causes it celebrates.

Powerful authoritarian regimes will not liberalize just because the Nobel Committee has chosen to honor a dissident. This is not because regimes dismiss it as a silly award given out by international do-gooders. In fact, they take it very seriously. Fearing that domestic activists would take heart, they have <a href="http://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165X.2009.tb00660.x">ramped up repression</a>, shrunk the space for political opposition and cracked down harder than ever.

This is what happened in Tibet and Myanmar after the Dalai Lama and after Aung San Suu Kyi received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 and 1991, respectively. Similarly, the Iranian lawyer and human rights activist <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east-july-dec03-nobel_10-10/">Shirin Ebadi</a> has been forced to lived in <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/26/world/la-fg-iran-lawyers-20110726">exile</a> in Britain since 2009. In China, the peace award did not make the release of the dissident <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/13/world/asia/liu-xiaobo-dead.html">Liu Xiaobo</a> from prison more likely.

The same is true when it comes to social change. Patriarchal societies, with their deeply entrenched gender roles, will not change just because some people in the West think they should and to that end name a women&rsquo;s rights activist a Nobel laureate.

What&rsquo;s at stake?

The Nobel Committee&rsquo;s intentions are honorable, but the results, I argue, can be tragic. The award raises the spirits of reformers, but it also mobilizes forces that are far greater in opposition.

Every October, many the world over hail the Nobel Committee for its brave and inspired choice. But it is the truly brave activists on the ground who are left to bear the consequences when anxious leaders bring the state&rsquo;s terrible power down on them.

And what happens when the Nobel Peace Prize actually helps to promote political change? As state counsellor (prime minister) of Myanmar, Aung San Suu Kyi has presided over the bloody persecution of the Rohingya and a swiftly mounting international refugee crisis. The admired dissident has, in power, turned out&nbsp;&nbsp;not&nbsp;to be so great a promoter of peace and tolerance.

<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84758/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1" />The Nobel Peace Prize Committee&rsquo;s choices have been noble &ndash; but, as my research suggests, also sometimes na&iuml;ve.

&nbsp;

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" nofollow="" rel="">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-nobel-peace-prize-brings-little-peace-84758" nofollow="" rel="">original article</a>.

&nbsp;

The winners and their causes have rarely profited from the Nobel Peace Prize.

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2017 was awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons an advocacy group that has worked to draw attention to their “catastrophic humanitarian consequences.” Every year, the winners of the Nobel Prizes are announced to great fanfare. And none receives more scrutiny than the Nobel Peace Prize. With good reason. The other Nobel Prizes are given to people who have already changed our world – for their remarkable accomplishments. But, in the case of the Nobel Peace Prize, the hope of the Nobel Committee is to change the world through its very conferral. It, therefore, rewards aspiration more than achievement. Francis Sejersted, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee from 1991-1999, once noted with pride the Nobel Peace Prize’s political ambitions: “The Committee also takes the possible positive effects of its choices into account [because] … Nobel wanted the Prize to have political effects. Awarding a Peace Prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act.” So, has the Nobel Peace Prize changed the world? Expecting the prize to bring world peace would be an unfair standard to apply. However, my research shows that the winners and their causes have rarely profited from the award. Even worse, the prize has at times made it harder for them to make the leap from aspiration to achievement. History of the peace award The Nobel Peace Prize was first awarded in 1901, five years after Alfred Nobel’s death. Nobel’s will defined peace narrowly and focused on candidates’ accomplishments: The prize was to be awarded “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” The committee initially remained true to Nobel’s charge. Between 1901 and 1945, over three-quarters of the prizes (33 of 43) went to those who promoted interstate peace and disarmament. Since the Second World War, however, less than one-quarter of the prizes have gone to promoting interstate peace and disarmament. Just seven of the 37 winners since 1989 fall into this category. Another 11 awards have sought to encourage ongoing peace processes. But many of these processes had borne little fruit at the time or still had a long road ahead. Consider that three of the most prominent winners in this category were then Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Nonetheless, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is today in a coma. Perhaps for this reason, in the last decade, the committee has given just two awards to encourage peace processes. In 2008 Martti Ahtisaari, former president of Finland, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his various achievements in Namibia, Kosovo and Aceh. In 2016, Colombia’s President Juan Manuel Santos was honored with the Nobel in the hope that the prize would help push through his peace deal with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) rebels, even though a popular referendum had just rejected it, and thereby end his country’s half-century-long civil war. The striking change since the 1970s, and especially since the end of the Cold War, has been the Nobel Peace Prize’s growing focus on promoting domestic political change. Albert Luthuli, winner of the 1960 Nobel Peace Prize. AP Photo Between 1946 and 1970, the prize was awarded just twice to dissidents and activists like the South African leader Albert Luthuli, who led a nonviolent struggle against apartheid in the 1960s, and the American civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.. Between 1971 and 1988, such figures received the prize five times. Between 1989 and 2016, more than 40 percent of all winners fell into this category. The rate has been even higher in the last decade: 57 percent of Nobel Peace Prize laureates since 2007 have been activists and advocates for equality, liberty and human development like educating women and stopping child labor. These are admirable values. But their connection to interstate, and intrastate, conflict is indirect at best and tenuous at worst. Does it bring global attention to issues? The Nobel Peace Prize’s defenders insist that the prize works in subtle but perceptible ways to advance the winners’ causes. They say it attracts media attention, bolsters the winners and their supporters, and even focuses international pressure. But there’s little evidence that the Nobel Peace Prize brings sustained global attention. First of all, in many instances it is hard to tell whether the prize has made any difference, because the media glare was already intense. For example, in 2005, when the committee honored the International Atomic Energy Agency and its director general, Mohammed El Baradei, nuclear proliferation was already of great concern. In other cases – such as South Africa’s transition from apartheid, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the troubles in Northern Ireland – the prize made little noticeable difference to international media coverage. It is true that in those few cases where coverage was not already strong, there have been occasional successes. For instance, I found that the committee’s decision to hand the award to Aung San Suu Kyi in 1991 did draw attention to the plight of Myanmar. But, in general, my research found little evidence that winning the Nobel Peace Prize boosts international media coverage of the winner’s cause beyond the short run. Putting activists in peril Of greater concern is that, when the Nobel Peace Prize goes to promote political and social change – as it has so often in recent decades – it can have very real and detrimental effects on the movements and causes it celebrates. Powerful authoritarian regimes will not liberalize just because the Nobel Committee has chosen to honor a dissident. This is not because regimes dismiss it as a silly award given out by international do-gooders. In fact, they take it very seriously. Fearing that domestic activists would take heart, they have ramped up repression, shrunk the space for political opposition and cracked down harder than ever. This is what happened in Tibet and Myanmar after the Dalai Lama and after Aung San Suu Kyi received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 and 1991, respectively. Similarly, the Iranian lawyer and human rights activist Shirin Ebadi has been forced to lived in exile in Britain since 2009. In China, the peace award did not make the release of the dissident Liu Xiaobo from prison more likely. The same is true when it comes to social change. Patriarchal societies, with their deeply entrenched gender roles, will not change just because some people in the West think they should and to that end name a women’s rights activist a Nobel laureate. What’s at stake? The Nobel Committee’s intentions are honorable, but the results, I argue, can be tragic. The award raises the spirits of reformers, but it also mobilizes forces that are far greater in opposition. Every October, many the world over hail the Nobel Committee for its brave and inspired choice. But it is the truly brave activists on the ground who are left to bear the consequences when anxious leaders bring the state’s terrible power down on them. And what happens when the Nobel Peace Prize actually helps to promote political change? As state counsellor (prime minister) of Myanmar, Aung San Suu Kyi has presided over the bloody persecution of the Rohingya and a swiftly mounting international refugee crisis. The admired dissident has, in power, turned out not to be so great a promoter of peace and tolerance. The Nobel Peace Prize Committee’s choices have been noble – but, as my research suggests, also sometimes naïve. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Why the Nobel Peace Prize brings little peace

A campaign group seeking a global ban on nuclear arms won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, given the award by a Nobel Committee that cited the spread of weapons to North Korea and said the risk was growing of nuclear war.

The award to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) was unexpected, particularly in a year when the architects of the 2015 nuclear deal between world powers and Iran had been seen as favourites for achieving the sort of diplomatic breakthrough that has won the prize in the past.

Supporters described the award as a potential breakthrough for a global movement that has fought to ban nuclear arms from the day the first atomic bomb was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima in August 1945.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
BREAKING NEWS The 2017 Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) <a href="https://twitter.com/nuclearban?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nuclearban</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NobelPrize?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#NobelPrize</a> <a href="https://t.co/I5PUiQfFzs">pic.twitter.com/I5PUiQfFzs</a>
&mdash; The Nobel Prize (@NobelPrize) <a href="https://twitter.com/NobelPrize/status/916226623061491712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 6, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Watch the very moment the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize is announced! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NobelPrize?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#NobelPrize</a> <a href="https://t.co/H0AtcRU7tn">pic.twitter.com/H0AtcRU7tn</a>
&mdash; The Nobel Prize (@NobelPrize) <a href="https://twitter.com/NobelPrize/status/916227885295394816?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 6, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

ICAN&#39;s Executive Director Beatrice Fihn told Reuters the group was elated. &quot;This. Is. Surreal.&quot; she later tweeted.

Asked if she had a message for North Korea&#39;s Kim Jong-Un, who has tested nuclear arms in defiance of global pressure, and President Donald Trump, who has threatened to &quot;totally destroy&quot; North Korea to protect the United States and its allies, Fihn said both leaders need to know that the weapons are illegal.

&quot;Nuclear weapons are illegal. Threatening to use nuclear weapons is illegal. Having nuclear weapons, possessing nuclear weapons, developing nuclear weapons, is illegal, and they need to stop,&quot; she told Reuters.

Two days before her group won the prize, Fihn had tweeted that Trump was &quot;a moron&quot;. She told Reuters she had written this in jest, in the context of news reports that U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had used the same word to describe his boss. But she said Trump&#39;s impulsive character illustrated the importance of banning nuclear arms for all countries.

&quot;A man you can bait with a tweet seems to be taking irrational decisions very quickly and not listening to expertise, it just puts a spotlight on what do nuclear weapons really mean. There are no right hands for the wrong weapons,&quot; she said.

ICAN describes itself as a coalition of grassroots non-government groups in more than 100 nations. It began in Australia and was officially launched in Vienna in 2007.

In her speech announcing the prize, Berit Reiss-Andersen, the leader of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, said the risk that nuclear weapons might be used was now &quot;greater than it has been for a long time&quot;.

&quot;Some states are modernising their nuclear arsenals, and there is a real danger that more countries will try to procure nuclear weapons, as exemplified by North Korea.&quot;

The award was hailed by anti-nuclear campaigners around the world. &quot;Now more than ever we need a world without nuclear weapons,&quot; United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres tweeted.

Mikiso Iwasa, an 88-year-old Hiroshima survivor, told Reuters the prize would help push the movement forward.

&quot;It is wonderful we have this Nobel Peace-Prize winning movement. All of us need to join forces, think hard and walk forward together to turn this momentum into something even bigger,&quot; he said.

Nuclear tensions

The prize seeks to bolster the case for disarmament amid nuclear tensions between Washington and Pyongyang, as well as uncertainty over the fate of the 2015 deal between Iran and major powers to limit Tehran&#39;s nuclear programme.

The prize-giving committee made no mention of Iran in its award citation. It raised eyebrows with its decision to award the prize to an international campaign group with a relatively low profile, rather than recognise the Iran deal, a complex agreement hammered out over years of high-stakes diplomacy.

&quot;Norwegian Nobel Committee has its own ways, but the nuclear agreement with Iran achieved something real and would have deserved a prize,&quot; tweeted Carl Bildt, a former Swedish prime minister who has held top posts as an international diplomat.

The Iran accord, which Trump has repeatedly called &quot;the worst deal ever negotiated&quot;, is seen as under particular threat this week. A senior administration official said on Thursday Trump is expected to &quot;decertify&quot; the pact, a step which could allow Congress to restore sanctions on Iran.

The committee may have been reluctant to reward the Iranian government for its role in the nuclear deal because the only Iranian winner so far, 2003 laureate Shirin Ebadi, a lawyer and human rights campaigner, is forced to live in exile.

&quot;I think the committee has thought about the human rights situation in Iran. It would have been difficult to explain the prize even though it has a favourable view of the Iran deal,&quot; Asle Sveen, a historian of the Nobel Peace Prize, told Reuters.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee denied that giving the prize to an anti-nuclear group was intended either as a rebuke to Trump, or as a snub to the architects of the Iran nuclear deal.

&quot;The Iran treaty is a positive development, a disarmament development that is positive, but the reason we mentioned North Korea (in our statement) is a reference to the threat that people actually feel,&quot; Reiss-Andersen told Reuters. &quot;Iran has not voiced recent threats to use nuclear weapons.&quot;

ICAN has campaigned for a U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which was adopted by 122 nations in July this year.

That agreement is not signed by -- and would not apply to -- any of the states that already have nuclear arms, which include the five U.N. Security Council permanent members, the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France, as well as India, Pakistan and North Korea. Israel is also widely assumed to have nuclear weapons, although it neither confirms nor denies it.

Major allies of the declared nuclear powers also oppose the new treaty. Nevertheless, campaigners see it as a framework that would make it easier for countries that have nuclear arms to work towards eliminating them.

NATO member Norway congratulated ICAN but said it would not sign the treaty to ban nuclear weapons. The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a committee appointed by the Norwegian parliament.

&quot;Norway will not support proposals in the UN that would weaken NATO&#39;s role as a defence alliance,&quot; Prime Minister Erna Solberg said.

Nuclear-armed nations, including the United States and Russia, back the U.N.&#39;s 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty which sets limits on the spread of atomic weapons and has a long-term goal of nuclear disarmament.

&quot;There is a strong logic in this peace prize,&quot; said Dan Smith, director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute &quot;It&#39;s all about encouraging governments to do what they have promised to do in the non-proliferation treaty.&quot;

The Nobel committee said the prize was awarded to ICAN for its 'work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons'?

A campaign group seeking a global ban on nuclear arms won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, given the award by a Nobel Committee that cited the spread of weapons to North Korea and said the risk was growing of nuclear war. The award to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) was unexpected, particularly in a year when the architects of the 2015 nuclear deal between world powers and Iran had been seen as favourites for achieving the sort of diplomatic breakthrough that has won the prize in the past. Supporters described the award as a potential breakthrough for a global movement that has fought to ban nuclear arms from the day the first atomic bomb was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima in August 1945. BREAKING NEWS The 2017 Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) @nuclearban #NobelPrize pic.twitter.com/I5PUiQfFzs — The Nobel Prize (@NobelPrize) October 6, 2017 × Watch the very moment the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize is announced! #NobelPrize pic.twitter.com/H0AtcRU7tn — The Nobel Prize (@NobelPrize) October 6, 2017 × ICAN's Executive Director Beatrice Fihn told Reuters the group was elated. "This. Is. Surreal." she later tweeted. Asked if she had a message for North Korea's Kim Jong-Un, who has tested nuclear arms in defiance of global pressure, and President Donald Trump, who has threatened to "totally destroy" North Korea to protect the United States and its allies, Fihn said both leaders need to know that the weapons are illegal. "Nuclear weapons are illegal. Threatening to use nuclear weapons is illegal. Having nuclear weapons, possessing nuclear weapons, developing nuclear weapons, is illegal, and they need to stop," she told Reuters. Two days before her group won the prize, Fihn had tweeted that Trump was "a moron". She told Reuters she had written this in jest, in the context of news reports that U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had used the same word to describe his boss. But she said Trump's impulsive character illustrated the importance of banning nuclear arms for all countries. "A man you can bait with a tweet seems to be taking irrational decisions very quickly and not listening to expertise, it just puts a spotlight on what do nuclear weapons really mean. There are no right hands for the wrong weapons," she said. ICAN describes itself as a coalition of grassroots non-government groups in more than 100 nations. It began in Australia and was officially launched in Vienna in 2007. In her speech announcing the prize, Berit Reiss-Andersen, the leader of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, said the risk that nuclear weapons might be used was now "greater than it has been for a long time". "Some states are modernising their nuclear arsenals, and there is a real danger that more countries will try to procure nuclear weapons, as exemplified by North Korea." The award was hailed by anti-nuclear campaigners around the world. "Now more than ever we need a world without nuclear weapons," United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres tweeted. Mikiso Iwasa, an 88-year-old Hiroshima survivor, told Reuters the prize would help push the movement forward. "It is wonderful we have this Nobel Peace-Prize winning movement. All of us need to join forces, think hard and walk forward together to turn this momentum into something even bigger," he said. Nuclear tensions The prize seeks to bolster the case for disarmament amid nuclear tensions between Washington and Pyongyang, as well as uncertainty over the fate of the 2015 deal between Iran and major powers to limit Tehran's nuclear programme. The prize-giving committee made no mention of Iran in its award citation. It raised eyebrows with its decision to award the prize to an international campaign group with a relatively low profile, rather than recognise the Iran deal, a complex agreement hammered out over years of high-stakes diplomacy. "Norwegian Nobel Committee has its own ways, but the nuclear agreement with Iran achieved something real and would have deserved a prize," tweeted Carl Bildt, a former Swedish prime minister who has held top posts as an international diplomat. The Iran accord, which Trump has repeatedly called "the worst deal ever negotiated", is seen as under particular threat this week. A senior administration official said on Thursday Trump is expected to "decertify" the pact, a step which could allow Congress to restore sanctions on Iran. The committee may have been reluctant to reward the Iranian government for its role in the nuclear deal because the only Iranian winner so far, 2003 laureate Shirin Ebadi, a lawyer and human rights campaigner, is forced to live in exile. "I think the committee has thought about the human rights situation in Iran. It would have been difficult to explain the prize even though it has a favourable view of the Iran deal," Asle Sveen, a historian of the Nobel Peace Prize, told Reuters. The Norwegian Nobel Committee denied that giving the prize to an anti-nuclear group was intended either as a rebuke to Trump, or as a snub to the architects of the Iran nuclear deal. "The Iran treaty is a positive development, a disarmament development that is positive, but the reason we mentioned North Korea (in our statement) is a reference to the threat that people actually feel," Reiss-Andersen told Reuters. "Iran has not voiced recent threats to use nuclear weapons." ICAN has campaigned for a U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which was adopted by 122 nations in July this year. That agreement is not signed by -- and would not apply to -- any of the states that already have nuclear arms, which include the five U.N. Security Council permanent members, the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France, as well as India, Pakistan and North Korea. Israel is also widely assumed to have nuclear weapons, although it neither confirms nor denies it. Major allies of the declared nuclear powers also oppose the new treaty. Nevertheless, campaigners see it as a framework that would make it easier for countries that have nuclear arms to work towards eliminating them. NATO member Norway congratulated ICAN but said it would not sign the treaty to ban nuclear weapons. The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a committee appointed by the Norwegian parliament. "Norway will not support proposals in the UN that would weaken NATO's role as a defence alliance," Prime Minister Erna Solberg said. Nuclear-armed nations, including the United States and Russia, back the U.N.'s 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty which sets limits on the spread of atomic weapons and has a long-term goal of nuclear disarmament. "There is a strong logic in this peace prize," said Dan Smith, director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute "It's all about encouraging governments to do what they have promised to do in the non-proliferation treaty."

Nobel Peace Prize awarded to International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons