Andrea Leadsom Quotes

Our nuclear weapons are meant purely as a deterrent against nuclear adventure by an adversary.

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.

American nuclear weapons would almost certainly start being removed from Britain within 12 months of a Labour government gaining power.

Pakistan has made no mention of ending our tests. We have a missile program, and it is in the national interest whatever we want to do.

Local defenses must be reinforced by the further deterrent of massive retaliatory power.

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.

I feel that the whole Western World will benefit by the resurrection of the neutron bomb project.

The entire United States is within range of our nuclear weapons, and a nuclear button is always on my desk. This is reality, not a threat.

A stronger defense is an investment in peace.

We do need our defense capabilities. It is a fact that the cuts we are facing today and the cuts that Senator [Ted] Cruz would have supported would leave us with an even smaller Air Force and a smaller Navy than the one we are going to be left with.

I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table.

I see a comparison between the two [Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump]. Peace through strength. What Chris Matthews don't grasp is that day Donald Trump gave a speech in which he said he's going to build the U.S. military up to Ronald Reagan levels.

I believe that when we overdo our military aggressiveness, what it does it actually weakens our national defense. I mean, we stood up to the Soviets. They had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Now we're fretting day in and day - night about third-world countries that have no army, navy or air force.

If in the words which the Secretary of State has just used, the use of a nuclear weapon is to be avoided 'at all costs'. what is the point of having one?

Surely no rational or realistic person will discount the possibility that [during wartime] the United States might suddenly resort to nuclear weapons. Those who retain the instinct for survival, not to speak of minimal concern for their fellow man, will seek ways to act before rather than after the event.

The Reagan Administration has no rational plan for our military. Instead, it acts on misinformed assumptions about the strength of the Soviet military and a presumed 'window of vulnerability,' which we now know not to exist.

That's a point that Dan Ellsberg has made for years. He said it's kind of like if you and I go into a grocery store to rob it, and I have a gun. The guy may give you the money in the cash register. I'm using the gun even if I don't shoot. Well that's nuclear weapons - essential to post-war deterrence - they cast a shadow over everything.

We(Pakistan) will eat grass, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own (Atom bomb).... We have no other choice!

In America, we believe in peace through strength, and that's what we will have.

Peace through strength works. We've got the greatest military in the world. I want them to dominate any potential conflict.

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

The nuclear bomb is the most useless weapon ever invented. It can be employed to no rational purpose. It is not even an effective defense against itself.

The National defense is one of the cardinal duties of a statesman.

North Korea has the same ability to launch a nuclear strike against America as I do. It's like walking through a parking lot and getting barked at by a chihuahua locked in a car.

Israel is a long way from facing a threat to its very existence. We are too strong, both economically and militarily, for that. If anything threatens Israel, it is this form of paranoid thought that makes us think: "Oh God, they're going to kill us in two seconds! What should we do?"