Top 220 Nuclear Weapons Quotes

Here we have the best Nuclear Weapons Quotes from famous authors such as Susan Rice, A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, Ed Miliband, Mark Z. Jacobson, Des Browne. Find the perfect quotation from our collection.

For the United States to recommit itself to the obligat
For the United States to recommit itself to the obligation that we undertook in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that many other states undertook, which was to work towards disarmament and the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons, is something that manifestly serves our national security interests.

India can live without nuclear weapons. That’s our dream, and it should be the dream of the U.S. also.

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.

Every dollar spent on nuclear is one less dollar spent on clean renewable energy and one more dollar spent on making the world a comparatively dirtier and a more dangerous place, because nuclear power and nuclear weapons go hand in hand.

Mark Z Jacobson
I do not believe it makes sense to say that nuclear weapons are inherently evil. In certain circumstances, they can play a positive role – as they have in the past. But clearly they have a power to do great harm.

Des Browne
I still believe that any country understands that if they use nuclear weapons, they will be wiped out of existence. They could be irrational in many ways, but I don’t think they’re irrational to the point that they’re ready to annihilate their own country.

Look, Israel doesn’t intend to introduce nuclear weapons, but if people are afraid that we have them, why not? It’s a deterrent.

I don’t think there was enough skepticism because I think most of us kind of believed that Saddam Hussein was building biological, chemical, and perhaps even, nuclear weapons.

Tell me a country that is doing well and has a great leader? You look at the nuclear weapons all over the place, and you look at things like ISIS, and every country seems to have a battle going on.

Robert Downey Sr
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.

A world free of nuclear weapons will be safer and more prosperous.

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.

David Lange
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.

Bruce Kent
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.

The U.N. Security Council ordered Iraq in April 1991 to relinquish all capabilities to make biological, chemical and nuclear weapons as well as long-range missiles.

The United States must not allow North Korea to exacerbate tensions between our key strategic allies in Asia. As the leader of the free world, the United States needs to support our regional allies who are standing up to a Stalinist regime that is intent on developing nuclear weapons.

Individuals can stand up against genocide in Darfur and Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.

The only thing that kept the Cold War cold was the mutual deterrence afforded by nuclear weapons.

Chung Mong-joon
For decades, Iran has covertly worked to develop a nuclear weapons program and has repeatedly violated its international obligations.

I think there are many times when it would be most efficient to use nuclear weapons. However, the public opinion in this country and throughout the world throw up their hands in horror when you mention nuclear weapons, just because of the propaganda that’s been fed to them.

Curtis LeMay
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.

The world should be very clear about making sure that Iran does not get nuclear weapons, period.

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.

To sum up, there is no evidence that a world without nuclear weapons would be a dangerous world. On the contrary, it would be a safer world, as I will show later.

Nuclear weapons are intrinsically neither moral nor immoral, though they are more prone to immoral use than most weapons.

We are not afraid of nuclear weapons. The point is that if we had in fact wanted to build a nuclear bomb, we are brave enough to say that we want it. But we never do that.

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.

It would be our policy to use nuclear weapons wherever we felt it necessary to protect our forces and achieve our objectives.

Robert McNamara
I’m very concerned about the nuclear weapons development for Iran and the destabilizing influence it has and they have in that part of the world. And I strongly endorse continued pressure, diplomatically, financially, economically.

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.

It is deterrence that has prevented the use of nuclear weapons by all states that possess them since 1945.

I worry about a democracy having nuclear weapons as much as a dictatorship having nuclear weapons.

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.

We have got thousands of nuclear weapons in order to achieve deterrence.

In a world which is armed to its teeth with nuclear weapons, every quarrel or difference of opinion may lead to violence of a kind quite different from what is possible today.

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.

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.

Japan is the only country in the world which suffered from the scourge of nuclear weapons.

Yoshiro Mori
It has always been clear that any use of nuclear weapons would have catastrophic humanitarian consequences.

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.

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.

My feelings of revulsion and foreboding about nuclear weapons had not changed an iota since 1945, and they have never left me. Since I was 14, the overriding objective of my life has been to prevent the occurrence of nuclear war.

Daniel Ellsberg
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.

If Iran and North Korea, by some horrible, devilish, nightmarish scenario, got together and went to war at the same time, one against Saudi Arabia and one against South Korea, I don’t know what we would do about that. I don’t know that we could stop them short of using nuclear weapons.

The larger picture here is that a North Korea with nuclear weapons adds to the larger proliferation risk.

The main points were: one, the amount of Israel’s nuclear weapons, how many Israel had, that no one could predict or know, including the CIA. They were thinking about a number like 10 or 15. But I came out with a number between 150 to 200.

We have an active program. We have nuclear weapons, we are a nuclear power. We have an advanced missiles program.

Ayub Khan
To nourish children and raise them against odds is in any time, any place, is more valuable than to fix bolts in cars or design nuclear weapons.

Marilyn French
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.

Nuclear weapons are infinitely less important in our foreign policy than they were in the days of the Cold War. I don’t think we need nuclear weapons any longer.

Des Browne
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.

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.

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.

The only sure way to eliminate the threat posed by nuclear weapons is to eliminate the weapons themselves.

Designing new low-yield nuclear weapons for limited strikes dangerously lowers the threshold for their use.

Russia is basically Italy with nuclear weapons.

We can just assume they have much more and powerful, more advanced technology, all the new computers, everything could be much more easier and help them to build much more and many more nuclear weapons.

There’s no way you can possibly intellectually justify, ‘Well, it’s okay for the Western Judeo-Christian countries to have nuclear weapons, but not for a country like Iran.’ That logic goes nowhere fast.

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.

I really believe the nexus of terrorism and nuclear weapons is the world’s most ominous threat.

The world has placed chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in a separate category because their use constitutes a crime against all humanity.

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.

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.

Having worked for him in the nuclear weapons policy business, I can tell you that President Reagan was committed to assuring the effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent.

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.

The long-standing, non-partisan and publicly-declared foreign policy commitment of the United States is clear. We will do whatever is required to prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons. Our nation has not ruled out any option that may be required to achieve this objective, including the use of military force.

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.

President Obama has made it clear that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The total elimination of nuclear weapons remains the highest disarmament priority of the United Nations.

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?

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.

Every dollar spent on nuclear is one less dollar spent on clean renewable energy and one more dollar spent on making the world a comparatively dirtier and a more dangerous place, because nuclear power and nuclear weapons go hand in hand.

Mark Z Jacobson
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.

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.

Dennis Ross
I have to bring to your notice a terrifying reality: with the development of nuclear weapons Man has acquired, for the first time in history, the technical means to destroy the whole of civilization in a single act.

Indeed, the very first resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations – adopted unanimously – called for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

We woke up one day, and Pakistan had nuclear weapons.

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 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.

All nuclear weapon states should now recognize that this is so, and declare – in Treaty form – that they will never be the first to use nuclear weapons. This would open the way to the gradual, mutual reduction of nuclear arsenals, down to zero.

The other countries did not share the same concern the United States had in the early ’90’s – that North Korea actually had an ongoing nuclear weapons program.

The no-first-use policy for nuclear weapons was a well thought out stand… We don’t intend to reverse it.

This means that the only function of nuclear weapons, while they exist, is to deter a nuclear attack.

Look, Israel doesn’t intend to introduce nuclear weapons, but if people are afraid that we have them, why not? It’s a deterrent.

No amount of sanctioning will persuade North Korea to give up nuclear weapons, nor will China step up and solve the problem for us.

We have a legal and moral obligation to rid our world of nuclear tests and nuclear weapons. When we put an end to nuclear tests, we get closer to eliminating all nuclear weapons. A world free of nuclear weapons will be safer and more prosperous.

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.

Haley Barbour
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.

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?

If Iran and North Korea, by some horrible, devilish, nightmarish scenario, got together and went to war at the same time, one against Saudi Arabia and one against South Korea, I don’t know what we would do about that. I don’t know that we could stop them short of using nuclear weapons.

We have to get rid of those nuclear weapons.

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.

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.

I believe if Mr. Obama is reelected, and Israel somehow is unable to interdict the Iranian nation from gaining nuclear weapons themselves, this administration unfortunately, I’m afraid, will allow Iran to gain a nuclear weapon and then pursue what they believe would be the traditional policy of containment.

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.

Yoshiro Mori
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?

In the end, for all of Obama’s grand rhetoric on ridding the world of nuclear weapons, history has doomed him to preside over the emergence of two rogue nuclear regimes (North Korea and Iran).

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.

The world has placed chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in a separate category because their use constitutes a crime against all humanity.

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.

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.

In the spring of 2007, Israeli intelligence brought to Washington proof that the Assad regime in Syria was building a nuclear reactor along the Euphrates – with North Korean help. This reactor was a copy of the Yongbyon reactor the North Koreans had built, and was part of a Syrian nuclear weapons program.

Unlike Iran, Israel refuses to allow inspections at all, refuses to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, has hundreds of nuclear weapons, has advanced delivery systems.

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?

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 catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons require that it be treated as a top priority. Disarmament will work better than any alternative in reducing the risk of use.

No one gives a damn what Iran thinks on any significant issue. The only reason Iran is at the big boys’ table is because of their nuclear weapons program.

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.

U.S. nuclear weapons that are available for presidential use are targeted against broad ocean areas.

C Robert Kehler
We are not afraid of nuclear weapons. The point is that if we had in fact wanted to build a nuclear bomb, we are brave enough to say that we want it. But we never do that.

There is a clear norm against the spread of nuclear weapons, but there is no consensus or treaty on what, if anything, is to be done once a country develops or acquires nuclear weapons.

I think one country with nuclear weapons is one country too many.

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.

C Robert Kehler
The world has been gradually reducing its nuclear arsenals. Testing must stop so that progress on the destruction of nuclear weapons may begin.

Individual scientists like myself – and many more conspicuouspointed to the dangers of radioactive fallout over Canada if we were to launch nuclear weapons to intercept incoming bombers.

Iran has never, is not, and will never seek nuclear weapons.

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.

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, India is a nuclear weapons state.

North Korea spends billions of dollars to make this nuke test system. If they would spend just 20 percent of what they spent on making nuclear weapons, nobody would have to die in North Korea from hunger but the regime chose to make us hungry.

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 lesson of the Cold War is that against nuclear weapons, only nuclear weapons can hold the peace.

Chung Mong-joon
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.

We continue to have nuclear weapons relied on as a weapon of choice. If that policy were to continue, we continue to have countries who are in a security bind, if you like, or perceive themselves to be in security bind to look for acquisition of nuclear weapons.

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.

Chemical weapons, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons should never be used.

Russia is basically Italy with nuclear weapons.

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.

I have long believed, especially after the unprovoked Western attack on Iraq and the ransacking of the Gaddafi regime in Libya, that North Korea would not desist from the full development of its nuclear weapons program, despite threats and sanctions from the West and even from China.

Everybody has to chip in, I think, and see how we can have a functioning system of collective security where we do not continue to face the threat of countries trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction or particularly nuclear weapons.

This is the reality of nuclear weapons: they may trigger a world war; a war which, unlike previous ones, destroys all of civilization.

The Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons would be infinitely more costly than any scenario you can imagine to stop it.

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.

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.

When we put an end to nuclear tests, we get closer to eliminating all nuclear weapons.

I believe we should be investing in the potential of nuclear technology based on thorium, to end the use of plutonium and lead to much safer nuclear power plants, less toxic nuclear waste, and less opportunities for nuclear weapons proliferation.

Nuclear weapons kill Americans – they don’t kill Republicans or Democrats – they kill Americans.

Joe Wilson
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.

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.

Russia is opposed to the proliferation of mass destruction weapons, including nuclear weapons, and in this context we call upon our Iranian friends to abandon the uranium enrichment programme.

Vladimir Putin
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.

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.

Kim Young-sam
A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.

Some amount of fear of nuclear weapons is necessary for nuclear deterrence to work.

To sum up, there is no evidence that a world without nuclear weapons would be a dangerous world. On the contrary, it would be a safer world, as I will show later.

I can tell you one thing, Iran is closer to developing nuclear weapons today than it was a week ago, or a month ago or a year ago. It’s just moving on with its efforts.

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.

Harrison Salisbury
Above all else, we need a reaffirmation of political commitment at the highest levels to reducing the dangers that arise both from existing nuclear weapons and from further proliferation.

Our nuclear weapons are meant purely as a deterrent against nuclear adventure by an adversary.

It’s very difficult to convince other countries that they shouldn’t pursue nuclear weapons programs if we ourselves are actively developing a component of a strategic defense system.

Today, India is a nuclear weapons state.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Chemical weapons, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons should never be used.

In the 1990s, the United States offered to help North Korea with its energy needs if it gave up its nuclear weapons programme.

Iran sees India, China, Pakistan and, allegedly, Israel around them with nuclear weapons.

Although September 11 was horrible, it didn’t threaten the survival of the human race, like nuclear weapons do.

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.

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.

When the U.S. claims the right to invade any country unilaterally and then defines a country like Iran or North Korea as ‘evil,’ then it is a rational response for these countries to develop nuclear weapons as the only military deterrent to invasion. We create what we most fear.

Concrete steps are needed to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in military plans, doctrines, and policies.

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.

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.

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 lesson of the Cold War is that against nuclear weapons, only nuclear weapons can hold the peace.

Chung Mong-joon
The nexus between terrorism and nuclear weapons, or even nuclear material, is obviously a current concern.

My dad was a Navy munitions officer, and by the end of his career, he was a specialist in nuclear weapons.

There is no direct evidence that nuclear weapons prevented a world war. Conversely, it is known that they nearly caused one.

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.

For the sake of future generations, we must continue to work together to realise a world without nuclear weapons.

John Roos
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.

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 greatest threat facing humanity is a radical Islamist regime meeting up with nuclear weapons.

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.

If the militarily most powerful – and least threatened – states need nuclear weapons for their security, how can one deny such security to countries that are truly insecure? The present nuclear policy is a recipe for proliferation. It is a policy for disaster.

We have to get rid of those nuclear weapons.

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.

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.

It would be our policy to use nuclear weapons wherever we felt it necessary to protect our forces and achieve our objectives.

Robert McNamara
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.

We have got thousands of nuclear weapons in order to achieve deterrence.

We have evidence that Iran makes a reactor to possess nuclear weapons.

Women don’t go to war to kill other women. Wars and armies and nuclear weapons are essentially heterosexual hobbies.

The Obama presidency has two great missions: fixing the economy, and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.

If Iran obtains nuclear weapons, then almost certainly Saudi Arabia will do the same, as will Egypt, Turkey and perhaps others in the region.

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.

David Lange
North Korea is going to get away with keeping its nuclear weapons.

So long as nuclear weapons continue to exist, so will the temptation to threaten others with overwhelming military force.

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.

Haley Barbour
Nuclear weapons remain a costly distraction from the real security threats we face, like climate change.

Since Europe is dependent on imports of energy and most of its raw materials, it can be subdued, if not quite conquered, without all those nuclear weapons the Soviets have aimed at it simply through the shipping routes and raw materials they control.

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.

Nuclear weapons remain a costly distraction from the real security threats we face, like climate change.

We may yet work up to some serious shooting war, or maybe some acts of urban genocide committed with rogue nuclear weapons. But if that were the case, why would we call that ‘9/11’? If Washington disappeared in a mushroom cloud, we’d give that huge event a different name.

I feel relieved that we discovered that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons.

In the late 1950s a major topic under discussion was whether Canada should acquire nuclear weapons.

It is the earnest hope of our people that the world may see the day when all nuclear weapons are abolished.

Eisaku Sato
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.

It is not viable for one country to demand a right to increase and upgrade its nuclear weapons capabilities while asking others to eliminate theirs.

Proliferation of nuclear weapons to terrorist organisations is far more dangerous than proliferation of nuclear weapons to states, even states like North Korea.

Trump’s opinions on the Iraq War have been as erratic as his opinions on other foreign policy matters – such as his careless position to think more countries should acquire nuclear weapons.

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.

Engaging in diplomacy with Iran and putting an end to their nuclear weapons program was the right thing to do.

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.

Our mission was to make sure that the bad guys, basically, did not get nuclear weapons.

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.

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.

The threat from Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction – chemical, biological, potentially nuclear weapons capability – that threat is real.

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.

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.

Andrei Sakharov
A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.

As long as some of us choose to rely on nuclear weapons, we continue to risk that these same weapons will become increasingly attractive to others.

India can live without nuclear weapons. That’s our dream, and it should be the dream of the U.S. also.

To respond to North Korea by having our own nuclear weapons will not maintain peace on the Korean Peninsula and could lead to a nuclear arms race in Northeast Asia.

Japan is the only country in the world which suffered from the scourge of nuclear weapons.

Yoshiro Mori
Indeed, the whole human species is endangered, by nuclear weapons or by other means of wholesale destruction which further advances in science are likely to produce.

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.

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?

Lincoln Chafee