Moon Jae-in Quotes

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.

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

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.

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

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

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 must take steps to prevent further nuclear weapons development or modernization.

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

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

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

A nuclear weapon is not just a football that you can use at will.

Dwight Eisenhower… supported the nuclearization of the military and the militarization of nuclear weapons as a cost saving way of deterring the Soviets. Under Eisenhower, custody or nuclear weapons shifted from the civilian Atomic Energy Commission to the military.

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?

A North Korea that has the capability to use a nuclear weapon that can reach an American city or those of an ally poses a grave challenge as the U.S. seeks to preserve peace and stability in the region.

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?

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

I agree that a nuclear Iran is extremely dangerous, and I believe that it must be prevented.

Living with a nuclear North Korea could give its leaders the confidence to act more aggressively versus South Korea. It could also, over time, drive both South Korea and Japan, as well as countries farther afield such as Vietnam, to reconsider their non-nuclear postures. The stability of a critical region of the world would suddenly be in doubt.

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.

Nuclear weapons offer us nothing but a balance of terror, and a balance of terror is still terror.

The only use for an atomic bomb is to keep somebody else from using one.

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.

The most dangerous thing Iraq could have ever had was a nuclear weapon. The nuclear weapon Iraq was trying to build was not deliverable by bomb or ballistic missile. It was a large, bulky device that they hoped to bury and set off to let the world know they had a nuclear weapon. They never achieved that.