J. B. Priestley Quotes

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.

I still believe that any country understands that if they use nuclear weapons, they will be wiped out of existence. They could be irrational in many ways, but I don't think they're irrational to the point that they're ready to annihilate their own country.

One effect could be that the huge atomic arsenal created in the cold war could be reduced significantly.

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

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.

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!

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

The only use for an atomic bomb is to keep somebody else from using one.

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.

So long as nuclear weapons continue to exist, so will the temptation to threaten others with overwhelming military force.

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.

It would be our policy to use nuclear weapons wherever we felt it necessary to protect our forces and achieve our objectives.

As for the assertion that nuclear weapons prevent wars, how many more wars are needed to refute this arguments? Tens of millions have died in the many wars that have taken place since 1945.

I'm still bothered by the threat 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.

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.

But the nuclear powers still cling tenaciously to their weapons.

In a world which is armed to its teeth with nuclear weapons, every quarrel or difference of opinion may lead to violence of a kind quite different from what is possible today.

I could not conceive of any President engaging in all-out nuclear war unless we were in danger of all-out devastation ourselves.

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

Don’t you realize that the Federal Government has the atomic bomb.

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

A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.

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.

We will use nuclear weapons whenever it serves our vital interests.