John Kerry Quotes

The objective of nuclear-weapons policy should not be solely to decrease the number of weapons in the world, but to make the world safer - which is not necessarily the same thing.

To sum up, there is no evidence that a world without nuclear weapons would be a dangerous world. On the contrary, it would be a safer world, as I will show later.

The Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons would be infinitely more costly than any scenario you can imagine to stop it.

Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation are not utopian ideals. They are critical to global peace and security.

The world should contemplate a nuclear weapons-armed Iran with the greatest of concern.

If we are to put the era of nuclear terror behind us, we must struggle against the real 'enemy.' That enemy is not nuclear weapons per se, nor is it the states that possess or develop them. The real enemy that we must confront is the ways of thinking that justify nuclear weapons; the readiness to annihilate others when they are seen as a threat or as a hindrance to the realization of our objectives.

A nuclear armed Iran makes the world less safe, less stable, less secure.

The biggest problem that the world has is nuclear weapons. Global warming is not our big problem. Our big problem is the maniacs that are controlling weaponry that has never been like it is today.

Nuclear disarmament is the only sane path to a safer world.

But I really believe it is in America's interest as well as that of the free world more generally to stop Iran from getting its hands on nuclear weapons. This regime has threatened to wipe Israel off the map and bring about a world without America, and either of those is a really bad prospect.

We have a legal and moral obligation to rid our world of nuclear tests and nuclear weapons. When we put an end to nuclear tests, we get closer to eliminating all nuclear weapons. A world free of nuclear weapons will be safer and more prosperous.

The biggest problem that we have on the face of the planet is Iran getting a nuclear weapon.

The larger picture here is that a North Korea with nuclear weapons adds to the larger proliferation risk.

I don't think that Iran with a nuclear capability will be just the problem of the state of Israel. This is a matter that concerns the whole world.

There is only one thing worse than one nation having the atomic bomb -- that's two nations having it.

You can’t go making new nuclear weapons and talk to the rest of the world about giving them up.

The way to win an atomic war is to make sure it never starts.

I think we have to get rid of nuclear weapons. The idea that somehow by having nuclear weapons you make the world a safer place is essentially insane.

The fewer nuclear weapons possessed by the fewest countries is safer, not only because of the possibility of a nuclear accident but also a nuclear war.

If we wish to convince countries like Iran that the development of nuclear weapons is not in their best interest, we need to demonstrate that maintaining or enhancing our own arsenal is not in our interest.

There are nuclear-weapons-free zones in several parts of the world already, except that they're not implemented fully, because the U.S. won't allow it.

You probably don't need more weapons than what's required to destroy every city on earth. There's only 2,300 cities. So, the United States, by that criteria, only needs 2,300 nuclear weapons - well, we've got more than 25,000!

Iran with a nuclear weapon or with fissile material that can be given to Hezbollah or Hamas or others has the potential of not just destabilizing the Middle East. But it could be brought here.

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

I remember some of the limited debate I did back in high school in the late '70s, early '80s: nuclear proliferation was always the big topic, and it's bad. We don't want to see it.