Henry A. Kissinger Quotes

Disarment ... is a continuing imperative.

The United States welcomes China's commitment to engage in arms control negotiations.

Some of [Donald Trump] comments can be interpreted as potentially reducing the threat of nuclear war. The major threat right now is right on the Russian border. Notice, not the Mexican border, the Russian border. And it's serious. He has made various statements moving towards reducing the tensions, accommodating Russian concerns and so on.

The advance guard in the campaign for peace that America wages today must be the State Department.

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.

As we speak, Iran has rolled back its nuclear program, shipped out its uranium stockpile, and the world has avoided another war.

We have a moral imperative to keep up the search for something better than mutual assured destruction.

This is not going to be decided by public opinion polls. It is a national security issue.

Peace and security for the United States depend on building principled, constructive, clear-eyed relations with our former great-power adversaries.

The next President's National Security Advisor ought to be an economist, instead of the usual military officer or arms control expert.

It is a mistake to isolate arms control from other areas of policy.... There is a danger that arms control will be a safety valve for an otherwise overly aggressive foreign policy.

The main aim of any American President is to prevent World War III.

Most people are disturbed by the shift from deterrence to preemption but the fact is that in international relations, deterrence has a poor track record

We are ready to cooperate with other nations to approximate disarmament, but merest prudence forbids that we disarm alone.

Military security and a policy of detente are not contradictory but complementary.

Because the United States now leads the world in arms deliveries by such a wide margin, Washington has little credibility when it chides other governments for transferring weapons to U. S. enemies.

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.

I think that the public debate that we had on the Iran deal was very important. That's probably one of the most consequential things most of us will ever vote on ; a nuclear arms control agreement with a mortal enemy. And the White House - despite all their efforts - failed miserably.

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.

My colleagues and I met with Prime Minister Netanyahu and other Israeli military and security officials to discuss our votes against the terrible Iran deal and to reaffirm our commitment to our longstanding alliance.

I thought I was going to grow up and become a diplomat and negotiate nuclear arms.

I don't have to negotiate an arms agreement with Great Britain or with France.

The fact is that we have been consistent in a predictable 60-year commitment to national security, while our friends and former enemies - by intent or default - have followed different paths since 1989. We stayed mostly the same as they became hypopowers that, to take a small example, would and could do nothing should a madman in Korea wish to kill millions.

I belong to the initiators of the... and we had repeatedly also asked the dismantling of the SS-20 but we did not connect them - that was the difference. We didn't connect them because we felt that this was a step taken, an unnecessary step by the American side and added to by the NATO member countries.

Arms control has to have a future, or none of us does. But it doesn't necessarily have to come in big packages of 600-page treaties.