Nuclear Quotes

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.

When we think of the major threats to our national security, the first to come to mind are nuclear proliferation, rogue states and global terrorism. But another kind of threat lurks beyond our shores, one from nature, not humans - an avian flu pandemic.

I can't understand why anyone would want nuclear warheads. If you shoot them off, it's not like you can take over that country-all you do is kill millions of people.

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.

We were fortunate to have the Russians as our childhood enemies. We practiced hiding under our desks in case they had the temerity to drop a nuclear weapon.

Our meaning is to make our little planet Earth a better place to live, to stop wars, disarm nuclear missiles, to stop diseases, AIDS, plague, cancer and to stop pollution.

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.

Nixon did have a secret plan, and I knew that it involved making threats of nuclear war to North Vietnam.

As a nuclear power - as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon - the United States has a moral responsibility to act.

Nuclear deterrence doesn't work outside of the Russian - U.S. context; Saddam Hussein showed that.

The whole idea of a nuclear system is to have a deterrent where we decide if we're going to use it.

Nuclear weapons kill Americans - they don't kill Republicans or Democrats - they kill Americans.

If we are to meet the growing electricity demand in the United States without significantly increasing emissions of greenhouse gases, we must maintain a diverse supply of electricity, and nuclear power must be part of that mix.

There is nothing worth having that can he obtained by nuclear war - nothing material or ideological - no tradition that it can defend. It is utterly self-defeating.

No matter what policy initiatives we take on, we are going to need a permanent repository for nuclear fuel based on the law and sound science.

The United States, and the president's made this clear, does not want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. That's a red line for us. And it's a red line obviously for the Israelis so we share a common goal here.

And they will tell you unequivocally that if we have a chemical or biological attack or a nuclear attack anywhere in this country, they are unprepared to deal with it today, and that is of high urgency.

Nuclear energy is the scientific achievement of the Iranian nation.

A terrorist nuclear detonation in a western city would destroy all economic confidence.

There are some people that will be deterred by the fact that we have nuclear weapons... But those people are the folks we can deal with anyway.

The government is shutting down the coal industry, they say it's cheaper to draw nuclear power off the French grid and cheaper to buy coal from Colombia.

From a scientific perspective there is some indication that a nuclear war could deplete the earth's ozone layer or, less likely, could bring on a new Ice Age - but there is no suggestion that either the created order or mankind would be destroyed in the process.

The thing that makes countries want to pursue some kind of nuclear deterrent is precisely the fact that they feel threatened.

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

I don't think that Iran with a nuclear capability will be just the problem of the state of Israel. This is a matter that concerns the whole world.

When we're talking about technology that involves weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, there has to be an element of preemption.

Nuclear physics is interesting but it is unlikely to help society.

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.

The idea that the growing demand for energy worldwide can be met with energy from nuclear power is nonsense.

We are told that the possession of nuclear weapons - in some cases even the testing of these weapons - is essential for national security. But this argument can be made by other countries as well.