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.
