Ban Ki-moon Quotes

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

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.

The atomic bomb made the prospect of future war unendurable. It has led us up those last few steps to the mountain pass; and beyond there is a different country.

If the Third World War is fought with nuclear weapons, the fourth will be fought with bows and arrows.

The atomic bomb is too dangerous to be loose in a lawless world.

The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery is a threat to both the Nato allies and Russia.

Long before the terrifying potential of the arms race was recognized, there was a widespread instinctive abhorrence of nuclear weapons, and a strong desire to get rid of them.

We need to make it very clear to the Iranians, the same way we made it clear to the Soviet Union and China, that their first use of nuclear weapons would result in the devastation of their nation.

The real abhorrent consequence of the invention of atomic bombs is the fact that we still have them and they're spreading.

Above all else, we need a reaffirmation of political commitment at the highest levels to reducing the dangers that arise both from existing nuclear weapons and from further proliferation.

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.

The catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons require that it be treated as a top priority. Disarmament will work better than any alternative in reducing the risk of use.

Aggressive and irresponsible steps endanger the peace and stability of the world, and the international community feels the need to protect itself from Iran.

One nuclear war is going to be the last nuclear - the last war, frankly, if it really gets out of hand. And I just don't think we ought to be prepared to accept that sort of thing.

In 1960 I published a book that attempted to direct attention to the possibility of a thermonuclear war, to ways of reducing the likelihood of such a war, and to methods for coping with the consequences should war occur despite our efforts to avoid it.

Are we prepared to tolerate a world in which countries which care about morality lay down their nuclear weapons, leaving others to threaten the rest of the world or hold it to ransom?

Everyone knows that Israel has nuclear weapons, but no one is talking about it. The world doesn't want nuclear weapons - not in Israel, not in the Middle East and not anywhere in the world.

I want to move to a world of no nuclear weapons but I want to do that through multilateral disarmament so that we all disarm together.

Barack Obama has injected fresh momentum into efforts - stalled for a decade - to bring about nuclear disarmament.

We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction, yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for security - and indeed to continue to refine their capacities and postulate plans for their use.

We must eliminate all nuclear weapons in order to eliminate the grave risk they pose to our world. This will require persistent efforts by all countries and peoples. A nuclear war would affect everyone, and all have a stake in preventing this nightmare.

The only thing that kept the Cold War cold was the mutual deterrence afforded by nuclear weapons.

We must perfect a worldwide system of accountability for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

I can't understand why anyone would want nuclear warheads. If you shoot them off, it's not like you can take over that country-all you do is kill millions of people.

Nuclear war is such an emotional subject that many people see the weapons themselves as the common enemy of humanity.