Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma Quotes

I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth—rocks!

The lesson of history is when a war starts every nation will ultimately use whatever weapon it has available. ... Therefore, we must expect that if another war — a serious war — breaks out, we will use nuclear energy in some form.

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.

This is the reality of nuclear weapons: they may trigger a world war; a war which, unlike previous ones, destroys all of civilization.

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

I would not recommend the use of any atomic weapon, no matter how small, when both sides have the power to destroy the world.

I'm still bothered by the threat of nuclear war.

The atomic bomb means the end of world war.

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

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

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

The combination of human fallibility and nuclear weapons can destroy nations.

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.

Even with the best intentions, you can have a nuclear war, a nuclear holocaust, through miscalculation, through accidents.

My feelings of revulsion and foreboding about nuclear weapons had not changed an iota since 1945, and they have never left me. Since I was 14, the overriding objective of my life has been to prevent the occurrence of nuclear war.

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.

I remember fear and I remember the potential of nuclear war.

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.

There is no direct evidence that nuclear weapons prevented a world war. Conversely, it is known that they nearly caused one.

My guess is that nuclear weapons will be used sometime in the next hundred years, but that their use is much more likely to be small and limited than widespread and unconstrained.

The widespread diffusion of nuclear weapons would make many nations able, and in some cases also create the pressure, to aggravate an on-going crisis, or even touch off a war between two other powers for purposes of their own.

The human species really could have faced global thermonuclear war. During seventy years of Cold War we grew used to it.

Nut With A Nuke

In the real world of real political leaders a decision that would bring even one hydrogen bomb on one city of one's own country would be recognized as a catastrophic blunder.

For decades, we and the Soviets have lived under the threat of mutual assured destruction; if either resorted to the use of nuclear weapons, the other could retaliate and destroy the one who had started it. Is there either logic or morality in believing that if one side threatens to kill tens of millions of our people, our only recourse is to threaten killing tens of millions of theirs?