In-depth News Features | NHK WORLD-JAPAN News

It's been a year since dozens of countries got together to enforce a landmark ban on nuclear weapons, yet the goal of eradication seems as distant as ever. For the states that refused to sign the treaty—countries with nuclear arms and others under their protection—discussions to prevent further spread of nuclear arms are not progressing. That stalemate has prompted some to ask: If the world's most powerful countries can't even agree to slim their nuclear arsenal, what hope is there of abolishing the weapons altogether?

It's been a year since dozens of countries got together to enforce a landmark ban on nuclear weapons, yet the goal of eradication seems as distant as ever. For the states that refused to sign the treaty—countries with nuclear arms and others under their protection—discussions to prevent further spread of nuclear arms are not progressing. That stalemate has prompted some to ask: If the world's most powerful countries can't even agree to slim their nuclear arsenal, what hope is there of abolishing the weapons altogether?

It's been a year since dozens of countries got together to enforce a landmark ban on nuclear weapons, yet the goal of eradication seems as distant as ever. For the states that refused to sign the treaty—countries with nuclear arms and others under their protection—discussions to prevent further spread of nuclear arms are not progressing. That stalemate has prompted some to ask: If the world's most powerful countries can't even agree to slim their nuclear arsenal, what hope is there of abolishing the weapons altogether?

It's been a year since dozens of countries got together to enforce a landmark ban on nuclear weapons, yet the goal of eradication seems as distant as ever. For the states that refused to sign the treaty—countries with nuclear arms and others under their protection—discussions to prevent further spread of nuclear arms are not progressing. That stalemate has prompted some to ask: If the world's most powerful countries can't even agree to slim their nuclear arsenal, what hope is there of abolishing the weapons altogether?

It's been a year since dozens of countries got together to enforce a landmark ban on nuclear weapons, yet the goal of eradication seems as distant as ever. For the states that refused to sign the treaty—countries with nuclear arms and others under their protection—discussions to prevent further spread of nuclear arms are not progressing. That stalemate has prompted some to ask: If the world's most powerful countries can't even agree to slim their nuclear arsenal, what hope is there of abolishing the weapons altogether?

It's been a year since dozens of countries got together to enforce a landmark ban on nuclear weapons, yet the goal of eradication seems as distant as ever. For the states that refused to sign the treaty—countries with nuclear arms and others under their protection—discussions to prevent further spread of nuclear arms are not progressing. That stalemate has prompted some to ask: If the world's most powerful countries can't even agree to slim their nuclear arsenal, what hope is there of abolishing the weapons altogether?

It's been a year since dozens of countries got together to enforce a landmark ban on nuclear weapons, yet the goal of eradication seems as distant as ever. For the states that refused to sign the treaty—countries with nuclear arms and others under their protection—discussions to prevent further spread of nuclear arms are not progressing. That stalemate has prompted some to ask: If the world's most powerful countries can't even agree to slim their nuclear arsenal, what hope is there of abolishing the weapons altogether?

It's been a year since dozens of countries got together to enforce a landmark ban on nuclear weapons, yet the goal of eradication seems as distant as ever. For the states that refused to sign the treaty—countries with nuclear arms and others under their protection—discussions to prevent further spread of nuclear arms are not progressing. That stalemate has prompted some to ask: If the world's most powerful countries can't even agree to slim their nuclear arsenal, what hope is there of abolishing the weapons altogether?

South Korea's former first lady Kim Keon-hee was in the dock this week as her showstopper criminal trial got underway in the Seoul Central District Court. While her husband Yoon Suk-yeol faces his own legal troubles over a martial law move during his failed presidency, 53-year-old Kim faces a raft of charges, including stock manipulation and corruption.

She has been in custody since August and her case ― involving diamonds and designer handbags alleged to have been received as bribes ― is linked to the controversial group formerly known as the Unification Church.

The leader of what is now called the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (FFWPU), Han Hak-ja, was arrested on September 23 on charges of improper solicitation, graft and embezzlement.

NHK World editor-in-chief and former Seoul bureau chief Aoki Yoshiyuki looks at the case so far and its impact beyond the headlines.

It's been a year since dozens of countries got together to enforce a landmark ban on nuclear weapons, yet the goal of eradication seems as distant as ever. For the states that refused to sign the treaty—countries with nuclear arms and others under their protection—discussions to prevent further spread of nuclear arms are not progressing. That stalemate has prompted some to ask: If the world's most powerful countries can't even agree to slim their nuclear arsenal, what hope is there of abolishing the weapons altogether?