Barack Obama Quotes

It is hard to seriously suggest that from a national-security standpoint, 1,000 warheads are not enough to protect the United States. Such an arsenal is literally overkill, sufficient to destroy every major population center on the planet outside of our borders.

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 Islamic State is dangerous, a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic is even more so.

The point is, once they have a missile that can hit the United States, we are now back in the kind of game we used to worry about with the Soviet Union, only the Soviet Union was more mature about this whole thing than I think the North Koreans will be.

We still live in a world where if you have nuclear weapons, you are buying power; you are buying insurance against attack.

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

The North Koreas of the world are trying very hard to acquire the material they need to acquire nuclear weapons, as is the case with Iran.

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.

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 an SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) system were to keep out ninety percent of incoming nuclear missiles, it would be a ninety percent success and most Americans would be dead.

Any possession of nuclear weapons in the Middle East is a danger.

Every thinking person fears nuclear war, and every technological nation plans for it.

I say in all sincerity that the nuclear arms race has no military purpose. Wars cannot be fought with nuclear weapons; their existence only adds to our perils because of the illusions which they have generated.

In a nuclear age, each of us is threatened when peace is not secured everywhere.

Nuclear weapons are the greatest national security risk to the United States, and they are the most important weapons in our arsenal.

Maintaining a U. S. Nuclear Arsenal presents only one benefit today: deterring the use of nuclear weapons by others. Thus, there is simply no reason for nuclear weapons to play a central role in U. S. Defense Policy any longer.

Atomic weapons with what we know today can be cheap… The cost will not break the bank of anyone who wants them….

The IAEA should be worried, as I am worried about it, because North Korea is now a nuclear power state with a ballistic missile program.

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.

You've got the North Koreans building weapons; you got the Iranians building weapons. You've got - the Pakistanis already have at least 100 nuclear weapons. Do you think there's any serious effort in this country to come to grips with that?

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

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.