Ellen Tauscher Quotes

Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation are not utopian ideals. They are critical to global peace and security.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

We are categorically against any new military nuclear power, be it Iran, be it North Korea, be it anyone.

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

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.

When George W. Bush came into office, North Korea had maybe one nuclear weapon and verifiably wasn't producing any more.

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

If we are to assume that North Korea becomes a nuclear-power state, of course the danger of having an all-out nuclear war, that possibility is very slim.

Nobody wants any country to have nuclear weapons.

You can’t go making new nuclear weapons and talk to the rest of the world about giving them up.

Unless Iran’s leadership believes that the costs of building a nuclear weapon will be greater than the benefit those weapons will provide, the Islamic Republic will become a nuclear-armed state.

If we wish to convince countries like Iran that the development of nuclear weapons is not in their best interest, we need to demonstrate that maintaining or enhancing our own arsenal is not in our interest.

China, North Korea's last ally in the world has just voted agaisnt them [in the United Nations]. What would you do if you thought every country in the world was against you and you wanted to survive? You would buy insurance. And the best insurance you could get to prevent invasion would be nuclear weapons, and that is just what North Korea has done. So now, when the President [Trump] threatens them, what do they do? They go out and buymore insurance.

There are nuclear-weapons-free zones in several parts of the world already, except that they're not implemented fully, because the U.S. won't allow it.

You probably don't need more weapons than what's required to destroy every city on earth. There's only 2,300 cities. So, the United States, by that criteria, only needs 2,300 nuclear weapons - well, we've got more than 25,000!

The greatest threat that the world faces is a nuclear Iran. A nuclear North Korea is already troubling enough.

We don't need another nuclear arms race to proceed a pace and then to encourage other countries to become very, to develop these kinds of capabilities also. This is not what we need.

Unlike some of our neighbours, India does not believe in dirty bombs. We take non-proliferation very seriously.

The whole nuclear-arms-control and non-proliferation policy of the nuclear powers is a fraud: The Americans could not prevent the Soviets from replicating their weaponry, and then could not object when the British did the same.

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.

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