Words matter. These are the best Nuclear Weapons Quotes from famous people such as Kim Young-sam, Mohamed ElBaradei, John Polanyi, Ayub Khan, Richard Engel, and they’re great for sharing with your friends.
It’s very certain that North Korea is developing nuclear weapons for offensive purposes. They don’t need nuclear weapons to defend their own country.
I argue that for every country to have an independent fuel cycle is the wrong way to go. Because any country which has a complete fuel cycle is a latent nuclear weapons country, in the sense that it is not far from making a nuclear weapon.
Individual scientists like myself – and many more conspicuous – pointed to the dangers of radioactive fallout over Canada if we were to launch nuclear weapons to intercept incoming bombers.
We have an active program. We have nuclear weapons, we are a nuclear power. We have an advanced missiles program.
A nuclear program has arguably worked as a deterrent for North Korea and other states – would Moammar Gadhafi have been deposed and summarily killed if Libya had had nuclear weapons? Iranians might not think so.
Iran has never, is not, and will never seek nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons remain a costly distraction from the real security threats we face, like climate change.
Our world faces many grave challenges: Widening conflicts and inequality. Extreme weather and deadly intolerance. Security threats – including nuclear weapons. We have the tools and wealth to overcome these challenges. All we need is the will.
Certainly, the JCPOA was not a perfect agreement. It did not deal with the threat from Iranian missiles, or their support for violent extremism. And it contains a ‘sunset clause,’ meaning it expires after a decade. But it was accomplishing the one goal it set out to achieve: stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Russia is basically Italy with nuclear weapons.
We’ve already seen proliferation. We started it with Britain, then France. Then we benignly let the Israelis do it. The Pakistanis and the Indians have recently done it. The Chinese have nuclear weapons.
Let me be crystal clear: There is no such thing as ‘limited use’ nuclear weapons, and for a Pentagon advisory board to promote their development is absolutely unacceptable.
I think we ultimately ought to look to put all uranium enrichment and fuel reprocessing, if any is done, under multinational control. Those are the two technologies by which nuclear energy can be translated into nuclear weapons programmes.
Nuclear weapons are intrinsically neither moral nor immoral, though they are more prone to immoral use than most weapons.
We have a chance to wind down and expedite the removal of 96 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons. What an achievement it would be, if at the end of the next administration, we could say that the nuclear arsenals of both Russia and the United States had been reduced to the barest minimums.
The Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons would be infinitely more costly than any scenario you can imagine to stop it.
Engaging in diplomacy with Iran and putting an end to their nuclear weapons program was the right thing to do.
Today, India is a nuclear weapons state.
I worry about 10, 15, 20, 25 years down the road. Where are we going to be in this age of nuclear weapons, where there is no margin for error?
Although September 11 was horrible, it didn’t threaten the survival of the human race, like nuclear weapons do.
You know, people have actually changed the way they think about nuclear weapons now, post-Cold War, post-9/11. The threat of nuclear weapons is not so much Russia attacking the United States, China. It’s not a state-to-state – it’s obviously terrorism; it’s proliferation.
In the 1950s, the average person saw science as something that solved problems. With the advent of nuclear weapons and pollution, the idealistic aura around scientific research has been replaced by cynicism.
Today, India is a nuclear weapons state.
The nature of nuclear weapons makes it impossible to either ban the bomb or wipe out an enemy’s arsenal. Nuclear deterrence was unavoidable.
Our republic is a responsible nuclear state that, as we made clear before, will not use nuclear weapons first unless aggressive hostile forces use nuclear weapons to invade on our sovereignty.
And the fact of the matter is there were thousands of people that went through those training camps in Afghanistan. We know they are seeking deadlier weapons – chemical, biological and nuclear weapons if they can get it.
The world should be very clear about making sure that Iran does not get nuclear weapons, period.
On good days, I can see the inherent goodness in people, and that human beings have a high capacity to learn and adapt. But things like the environment, nuclear weapons and ideas like peak oil – if you think about them too much, they can really freak you out.
Of course I’ve got lawyers. They are like nuclear weapons, I’ve got em ’cause everyone else has. But as soon as you use them they screw everything up.
Many foolish people believe that nuclear war cannot happen, because there can be no winner. However, the American war planners, who elevated U.S. nuclear weapons from a retaliatory role to a pre-emptive first strike function, obviously do not agree that nuclear war cannot be won.
In North Korea, grass is a vegetable eaten by the people, and they’ve got nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles. So, something more stringent than what’s been done to North Korea is going to have to work; otherwise, a military strike is the only option.
There are many controversial topics out there – abortion, nuclear weapons, the 2nd Amendment, guns, whatever, the war in Iraq. You’re going to be on one side, somebody’s going to be on the other side. Invite those people to the table. Sit down and talk.
A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.
So I think we should stay focused on the real problem in the Middle East. It’s not Israel. It’s these dictatorships that are developing nuclear weapons with the specific goal of wiping Israel away.
We have an active program. We have nuclear weapons, we are a nuclear power. We have an advanced missiles program.
Putin has a lot at stake here and restoring the relationship with the United States, and there are already signs as Sandy mentioned that he’s moving in the right direction to begin to ascertain that their trade with Iran is not used for the production of nuclear weapons.
The Iran deal was working. As a solution to the problem of Iran developing nuclear weapons, it was actually working quite well.
Israel claims it needs nuclear weapons as a deterrent against any threat to its existence. The Arab world in return feels that this is an imbalanced system; there is a sense of humiliation and impotence.
In 1947 I defended my thesis on nuclear physics, and in 1948 I was included in a group of research scientists whose task was to develop nuclear weapons.
There are nuclear weapons in China, Iran, Korea and Pakistan. It wouldn’t take much to send a couple of warheads off on this planet somewhere that would cause a lot of environmental damage, then if you have got someone who wants to retaliate you have real problems.
Most Americans will be horrified that President Obama is compromising our deterrent to chemical and biological attacks on this country. Our allies will also be troubled by his aspiration to eliminate U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.
The no-first-use policy for nuclear weapons was a well thought out stand… We don’t intend to reverse it.
North Korea is going to get away with keeping its nuclear weapons.
The total elimination of nuclear weapons remains the highest disarmament priority of the United Nations.
We do not wish to have nuclear weapons on New Zealand soil or in our harbors. We do not ask, we do not expect, the United States to come to New Zealand’s assistance with nuclear weapons or to present American nuclear capability as a deterrent to an attacker.
Nuclear weapons and TV have simply intensified the consequences of our tendencies, upped the stakes.
A bad deal with Iran on nuclear weapons is worse than no deal at all.
This is the reality of nuclear weapons: they may trigger a world war; a war which, unlike previous ones, destroys all of civilization.
The world has been gradually reducing its nuclear arsenals. Testing must stop so that progress on the destruction of nuclear weapons may begin.
A world free of nuclear weapons will be safer and more prosperous.
Israel has many hopes, and faces extreme dangers. The most prominent danger is Iran, which is making every effort to acquire nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, and establishing an enormous terror network together with Syria in Lebanon.
A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.
There’s an abiding interest by the United States, by the American people, and by anybody with his eyes set in his head, to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Israel is the agent and surrogate of the United States and as such is treated entirely differently from every other country in the region. How can anyone expect Iran to accept that it is right for Israel to have nuclear weapons while itself being disallowed?
Five million Jews are regarding me as a traitor, but six billion people around the world think me as a hero and a good man who bring the message to all the human beings that we should survive and prevent the use of nuclear weapons and to prevent the nuclear preparations and to prevent nuclear war in the future.
When I was in the White House, I was confronted with the challenge of the Cold War. Both the Soviet Union and I had 30,000 nuclear weapons that could destroy the entire earth and I had to maintain the peace.
The Obama presidency has two great missions: fixing the economy, and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.
In addition to deep divisions on issues such as trade, climate change, Middle East peace and nuclear weapons, Trump’s attacks on leaders such as Trudeau and Merkel and disrespect for NATO and other institutions are prompting a reassessment by allied governments and publics.
Iran’s goal is not to become another North Korea – a nuclear weapons possessor but a pariah in the international community – but rather Brazil or Japan, a technological powerhouse with the capacity to develop nuclear weapons if the political winds were to shift, while remaining a nonnuclear weapons state.
The sole purpose of nuclear weapons must be to deter their use by others.
As for the assertion that nuclear weapons prevent wars, how many more wars are needed to refute this arguments? Tens of millions have died in the many wars that have taken place since 1945.
Our enemy is Al Qaeda and its allies, people who have publicly said they wish to attack the United States again, people who have publicly called on nuclear physicists and engineers to help them gain access to nuclear weapons, which, as the whole world knows, Pakistan has.
We should not approve an agreement that fails to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and does nothing to address Iranian behavior that threatens our allies and our interests.
I’ll remind you that the West signed a deal with North Korea, said it would make the world a safer place, and, of course, all the words evaporated, and North Korea acquired nuclear weapons.
When we put an end to nuclear tests, we get closer to eliminating all nuclear weapons.
My guess is that nuclear weapons will be used sometime in the next hundred years, but that their use is much more likely to be small and limited than widespread and unconstrained.
What the United States has to do is send a clear message to Iran that they will not be able to develop nuclear weapons. Why endure the difficulty of sanctions if they are not going to be able to develop nuclear weapons anyway?
I wouldn’t discount the possibility that the Israelis would act if they came to the conclusion that basically the world was prepared to live with Iran with nuclear weapons. They certainly have the capability by themselves to set back the Iranian nuclear program.
We have evidence that Iran makes a reactor to possess nuclear weapons.
We are categorically against proliferation of nuclear weapons.
When I was in the White House, I was confronted with the challenge of the Cold War. Both the Soviet Union and I had 30,000 nuclear weapons that could destroy the entire earth and I had to maintain the peace.
So I think we should stay focused on the real problem in the Middle East. It’s not Israel. It’s these dictatorships that are developing nuclear weapons with the specific goal of wiping Israel away.
Some day, somebody is going to have to start talking about what happens to us all a decade from now if we let these North Koreans and the Iranians go forward with their nuclear weapons program.
Donald Trump’s candidacy has been a source of anxiety for many reasons, but one stands out: the ability of the president to launch nuclear weapons. When it comes to starting a nuclear war, the president has more freedom than he or she does in, say, ordering the use of torture.
We have to get rid of those nuclear weapons.
We need to make it very clear to the Iranians, the same way we made it clear to the Soviet Union and China, that their first use of nuclear weapons would result in the devastation of their nation.
No amount of sanctioning will persuade North Korea to give up nuclear weapons, nor will China step up and solve the problem for us.
The message from national security experts and citizens around the world is clear: The only way to eliminate the global nuclear danger is to eliminate all nuclear weapons.
But I really believe it is in America’s interest as well as that of the free world more generally to stop Iran from getting its hands on nuclear weapons. This regime has threatened to wipe Israel off the map and bring about a world without America, and either of those is a really bad prospect.
Certainly, the JCPOA was not a perfect agreement. It did not deal with the threat from Iranian missiles, or their support for violent extremism. And it contains a ‘sunset clause,’ meaning it expires after a decade. But it was accomplishing the one goal it set out to achieve: stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Everyone knows that Israel has nuclear weapons, but no one is talking about it. The world doesn’t want nuclear weapons – not in Israel, not in the Middle East and not anywhere in the world.
I feel relieved that we discovered that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons.
The larger picture here is that a North Korea with nuclear weapons adds to the larger proliferation risk.
The chief task was to stop the arms race before it brought utter disaster. However, after the collapse of communism and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, any rationale for having nuclear weapons disappeared.
The world has placed chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in a separate category because their use constitutes a crime against all humanity.
We have got thousands of nuclear weapons in order to achieve deterrence.
Russia doesn’t want to have a return to the situation where it was the United States and say Israel, making determinations about whether there might be a strike against Iran if the negotiations over the nuclear weapons program weren’t going in a direction that they wanted to.
Today I can declare my hope and declare it from the bottom of my heart that we will eventually see the time when that number of nuclear weapons is down to zero and the world is a much better place.
So I ask the nuclear powers to abandon the out-of-date thinking of the Cold War period and take a fresh look. Above all, I appeal to them to bear in mind the long-term threat that nuclear weapons pose to humankind and to begin action towards their elimination.
We still live in a world where if you have nuclear weapons, you are buying power; you are buying insurance against attack.
While the agreement provides a level of constraint on Iran’s nuclear weapons program, it confers legitimacy on their nuclear threshold status, an unprecedented shift for a country with so many entanglements.
As a state sponsor of global terrorism and supplier of weapons to terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons capabilities.
CRISPR-enabled ‘gene drives’ enable us to make changes to the germ-line of organisms permanent such that changes spread through the entire wild population, including making species extinct on demand. Unlike nuclear weapons such technologies are not complex, expensive, and able to be kept secret for a long time.
The crucial thing is to arouse the awareness that as a matter of human conscience we can never permit the people of any country to fall victim to nuclear weapons, and for each individual to express their refusal to continue living in the shadow of the threat they pose.
It is no surprise that companies do not often respond to moral pressure alone. We need to hit them hard in their pocketbook and on their balance sheet. We need to show them that their stock prices will be affected if their actions encourage Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions.
We must confront this Zionist entity. All ties of all kinds must be severed with this plundering criminal entity, which is supported by America and its weapons, as well as by its own nuclear weapons, the existence of which is well known. It will bring about their own destruction.
If we are really anxious not to have nuclear weapons in Iran, the first thing is to call an international conference on abolishing all nuclear weapons, including Israeli nuclear weapons.
Japan learned from the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that the tragedy wrought by nuclear weapons must never be repeated and that humanity and nuclear weapons cannot coexist.
Communism counts its opportunities in terms of decades – not of weeks. Its means of aggression consist not only of nuclear weapons and missiles with enormous boosters, and not only of spies, agents and terrorists, but of great masses of men and women, deluded by a common ideology which inspires them with a false hope.
I actually believe we are the superior gender. Why are we superior? Statistically, we outlive men by a good 10 years. No one should underestimate the power of nagging – it’s on par with nuclear weapons.
We do not know which irresponsible Israeli prime minister will take office and decide to use nuclear weapons in the struggle against neighboring Arab countries. What has already been exposed about the weapons Israel is holding can destroy the region and kill millions.
People understand that nuclear weapons cannot be used without indiscriminate effects on civilian populations. Such weapons have no legitimate place in our world. Their elimination is both morally right and a practical necessity in protecting humanity.
Women don’t go to war to kill other women. Wars and armies and nuclear weapons are essentially heterosexual hobbies.
Long before the terrifying potential of the arms race was recognized, there was a widespread instinctive abhorrence of nuclear weapons, and a strong desire to get rid of them.
Nobody wants any country to have nuclear weapons.
The inspections started in 1991, right after the Gulf War. One of the conditions for the ceasefire was that Iraq had to do away with all of its weapons of mass destruction – biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and long-range missiles.
The professed function of the nuclear weapons on each side is to prevent the other side from using their nuclear weapons. If that’s all it is, then we’ve gotta as: how many nuclear weapons do you need to do that?
I want to move to a world of no nuclear weapons but I want to do that through multilateral disarmament so that we all disarm together.
There’s an abiding interest by the United States, by the American people, and by anybody with his eyes set in his head, to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
The United States strongly seeks a lasting agreement for the discontinuance of nuclear weapons tests. We believe that this would be an important step toward reduction of international tensions and would open the way to further agreement on substantial measures of disarmament.
The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
The truth is, as long as nuclear weapons exist, we are not safe.
I do not agree that South Korea needs to develop our own nuclear weapons or relocate tactical nuclear weapons in the face of North Korea’s nuclear threat.
Many people – when they think about North Korea and the dictatorship, or the military or nuclear weapons, nuclear missiles, those things – tend to forget ordinary citizens are living there.
Proliferation of nuclear weapons to terrorist organisations is far more dangerous than proliferation of nuclear weapons to states, even states like North Korea.
It would be our policy to use nuclear weapons wherever we felt it necessary to protect our forces and achieve our objectives.
Russia is basically Italy with nuclear weapons.
The world has placed chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in a separate category because their use constitutes a crime against all humanity.
As a teenager I read a lot of books. Books with lots of scary trends, things like nuclear weapons and overpopulation and global diseases, and I thought, ‘Wouldn’t it be great to write stories that showed people these problems and that we could do something about them.’
I mean, when you get down to very low numbers of nuclear weapons, and you contemplate going to zero, how do you deal with the reality of that technology being available to almost any country that seeks to pursue it? And what conditions do you put in place?
I believe we should use all means necessary to prevent the acquisition or fabrication of nuclear weapons by countries or groups hostile to the U. S. We should act in concert with our allies who are similarly working to protect their countries.
We are not a gigantic state, we do not have nuclear weapons, but our army is sufficiently capable to respond to any threat… Therefore, we will protect our patch of land, our statehood, and our independence.
Iran is not about building nuclear weapons. We don’t wanna build nuclear weapons. We don’t believe that nuclear weapons bring security to anybody, certainly not to us.
Our nuclear weapons are meant purely as a deterrent against nuclear adventure by an adversary.
It is most regrettable that nuclear energy is being harnessed for making nuclear weapons.
Experts say that Iraq may have nuclear weapons. That’s bad news – they may have a nuclear bomb. Now the good news is that they have to drop it with a camel.
When we put an end to nuclear tests, we get closer to eliminating all nuclear weapons.
I think the American people are very smart in understanding our country is very trustworthy with nuclear weapons. We’ve had them from the beginning. But they have also been critical for keeping the world more at peace than it would have been if it hadn’t been for the American nuclear umbrella.
The widespread diffusion of nuclear weapons would make many nations able, and in some cases also create the pressure, to aggravate an on-going crisis, or even touch off a war between two other powers for purposes of their own.
We live in a very uncertain world, and I think that uncertainty of itself generates an environment which we should not make a decision that deprives future generations of the deterrent effect that the nuclear weapons have provided for us and for almost all of my life.
I grew up in Los Alamos, New Mexico, which is my hometown. In Los Alamos is, for people who don’t know, a nuclear lab that built the atomic bomb. The only reason the town exists is to make nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, and that’s still happening there.
Russian strategy seems to center on maintaining Putin’s popularity at home; building a strong military capacity in special forces, nuclear weapons, and advanced submarines; pressuring nearby nations to join various defense and customs pacts dominated by Russia; and pushing back on the U.S. wherever convenient.
It is the earnest hope of our people that the world may see the day when all nuclear weapons are abolished.
What would be most productive is for Chairman Kim and his staff and for President Trump and all his staff to continue upon the path that was laid out for us both in Vietnam and at the DMZ, and that is a diplomatic resolution and the end of North Korea’s nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons continue to occupy a unique place in global security affairs. No other weapons, in my opinion, anyway, match their potential for prompt and long-term damage and their strategic impact.
Al Qaeda is almost all in Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And yet for every dollar we’re spending in Pakistan, we’re spending $30 in Afghanistan. Does that make strategic sense?
I would much rather we concentrated on the immediate, still-potent dangers, such as nuclear weapons, runaway climate change, and so on. Sort those out, then worry about Hal 9000.
Some people have said, in so many words, that I’m kind of wooly-headed in believing that the Iranians would see not having nuclear weapons as more in their security interest than not.
Nuclear weapons present us with a paradox: We spend billions of dollars building and maintaining them in the hope that we never have to use them.
The inspections started in 1991, right after the Gulf War. One of the conditions for the ceasefire was that Iraq had to do away with all of its weapons of mass destruction – biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and long-range missiles.
I don’t think soldiers should be anywhere in the world. I mean, that is a moral and a basic philosophy. I think that the only way to end wars is to have no military and to find other ways in which – I think we should suspend all nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons remain a costly distraction from the real security threats we face, like climate change.
But beyond all that, the question that is continually begged is why isn’t America leading the way toward total abolition of nuclear weapons.
It is my strong hope that an environment will be created in which both of our countries can cooperate for the realization of a world without nuclear weapons.
After a decade in public life working to stop Iran from ever acquiring nuclear weapons, I cannot support a deal giving Iran billions of dollars in sanctions relief – in return for letting it maintain an advanced nuclear program and the infrastructure of a threshold nuclear state.
By the time Congress is even authorized to act after the President has launched nuclear weapons, there may no longer be a civilized world in which to do so.
The lesson of the Cold War is that against nuclear weapons, only nuclear weapons can hold the peace.
The professed function of the nuclear weapons on each side is to prevent the other side from using their nuclear weapons. If that’s all it is, then we’ve gotta as: how many nuclear weapons do you need to do that?
Until the ayatollahs that run Iran give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons, we cannot and should not ease the pressure on the regime to do so.
The only thing that kept the Cold War cold was the mutual deterrence afforded by nuclear weapons.
I visited the Chinese side last year. The Chinese are in a constant state of military readiness. They have all their nuclear weapons in the area, presumably trained on targets across the border.
Designing new low-yield nuclear weapons for limited strikes dangerously lowers the threshold for their use.
We have to get rid of those nuclear weapons.
Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.
I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.
I remembered being young in the late ’70s and early ’80s and growing up at the height of the Cold War. I remembered how scared I was of nuclear weapons, how often I though about them and about the possibility of everything and everyone I knew vanishing in a second in temperatures hotter than the centre of the sun.
The lesson of the Cold War is that against nuclear weapons, only nuclear weapons can hold the peace.
If the Russian nuclear arsenal was fired at the United States and other targets, and we fired back at them with thousands of nuclear weapons, it would be the end of life on earth.
It would be our policy to use nuclear weapons wherever we felt it necessary to protect our forces and achieve our objectives.
Our world faces many grave challenges: Widening conflicts and inequality. Extreme weather and deadly intolerance. Security threats – including nuclear weapons. We have the tools and wealth to overcome these challenges. All we need is the will.
Nuclear weapons offer us nothing but a balance of terror, and a balance of terror is still terror.
I’ve repeatedly voted for sanctions against Iran. And I think all options should be on the table to prevent them from having nuclear weapons.
The nexus between terrorism and nuclear weapons, or even nuclear material, is obviously a current concern.
The broad goal, laid out by Congress, the Obama administration, and the U.N. Security Council, was that Iran would suspend all enrichment-related activities and not be permitted a path to ever pursue a nuclear weapons program.
Indeed, the very first resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations – adopted unanimously – called for the elimination of nuclear weapons.
At the height of Iraq’s clandestine nuclear weapons program, which nearly succeeded in building a bomb in 1991, Tuwaitha incorporated research reactors, uranium mining and enrichment facilities, chemical engineering plants and an explosives fabrication center to build the device that detonates a nuclear core.
I think we’ve already voted at the U.N., in the Security Council, to get rid of nuclear weapons. Let’s get rid of them. Let’s get rid of ours and then Iran will stop, I believe. And so everybody else will, because if everybody doesn’t have them, then we’re safe, at least safe from a nuclear attack.
I don’t like the fact that North Korea is testing nuclear weapons, and I don’t like the fact that they’re testing missiles and shooting them out in the sea in kind of an antagonistic fashion.
We must eliminate all nuclear weapons in order to eliminate the grave risk they pose to our world. This will require persistent efforts by all countries and peoples. A nuclear war would affect everyone, and all have a stake in preventing this nightmare.
We have a legal and moral obligation to rid our world of nuclear tests and nuclear weapons.
