Des Browne Quotes

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

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.

The no-first-use policy for nuclear weapons was a well thought out stand... We don't intend to reverse it.

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 there are many times when it would be most efficient to use nuclear weapons. However, the public opinion in this country and throughout the world throw up their hands in horror when you mention nuclear weapons, just because of the propaganda that's been fed to them.

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.

So, we need to delegitimize the nuclear weapon, and by de-legitimizing... meaning trying to develop a different system of security that does not depend on nuclear deterrence.

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.

I believe we should use all means necessary to prevent the acquisition or fabrication of nuclear weapons by countries or groups hostile to the U. S. We should act in concert with our allies who are similarly working to protect their countries.

The nuclear weapon is obsolete. I want to get rid of them all.

And also, we are providing, you know, a nuclear power plant in the north, two light water systems, so some 4 or 5 billion dollars we are providing to meet with North Korean requests on the condition North Korea will not produce a nuclear weapon.

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

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

In the past, science has often been able to provide adequate protection against new weapons it has given into the hands of an aggressor, but it cannot promise such efficient protection against the destructive use of nuclear power

I would like to see invented a substance or a machine with such terrible power of mass destruction that war would thereby be made impossible forever.

We do not believe that a nuclear war should be fought and we do not believe that a nuclear war can be won.

The thing about the management of nuclear weapons is that it has to be perfect. 99 percent will not do.

One significant indication of the effectiveness of deterrence is that the Soviet Union and the United States share the belief that a nuclear war would begin only out of desperation or inadvertence. A weakening of deterrence could increase the possibility of a calculated “voluntary” war or worse.

Nuclear weapons present us with a paradox: We spend billions of dollars building and maintaining them in the hope that we never have to use them.

The only sure way to eliminate the threat posed by nuclear weapons is to eliminate the weapons themselves.

Our mission was to make sure that the bad guys, basically, did not get nuclear weapons.

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

I'd be the last one to use the nuclear weapons, because that's sort of like the end of the ballgame.

Well, a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East would be a wonderful thing.