Holly Black Quotes

The present basic philosophy is nuclear deterrence.

The notion that our only strategic choice is MAD (mutually assured destruction)—which means nothing less than an unstable pact to commit instant and total mutual suicide in the event of war—is irrational, immoral and unnecessary.

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?

Nuclear weapons are only good for deterring. It is insane that two men, sitting on opposite ends of the world, should be able to decide to bring an end to civilization.

The trick in nuclear strategy is to maintain stability by balancing potentials and thus to discourage events from converting the hypothetical to the actual.

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

If the [present] deterrent is the mutual annihilation of each other ..., what else do we need and why?

In the Cuban missile crisis [1962] we had 5,000 nuclear strategic weapons and the Russians had only 300.... Even though we had a 17 to 1 advantage, we were deterred. Even if only ten percent of their missiles got through, tens of millions of Americans would have died. We could not use our nuclear superiority.

The atomic clock ticks faster and faster. We may anticipate a state of affairs in which the Great Powers will each be in a position to put an end to the civilization and life of the other, though not without risking its own. We may be likened to two scorpions in a bottle, each capable of killing the other but only at risk of his own life.

The nuclear arms race is like two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline, one with three matches, the other with five.

To have the ability to destroy all and not to do it was one of the hard tests humanity passed - but only just - in the middle of the twentieth century.

Firing off 1,000 or 500 or 2,000 nuclear warheads on a few minutes' consideration has always struck me as an absurd way to go to war.

The whole idea of a nuclear system is to have a deterrent where we decide if we're going to use it.

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

Had we not pursued the hydrogen bomb, there is a very real threat that we would now all be speaking Russian. I have no regrets.

If you go on with this nuclear arms race, all you are going to do is make the rubble bounce.

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.

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.

This means that the only function of nuclear weapons, while they exist, is to deter a nuclear attack.

The chief task was to stop the arms race before it brought utter disaster. However, after the collapse of communism and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, any rationale for having nuclear weapons disappeared.

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

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

It is essential that we maintain the capability at all times to inflict an unacceptable level of damage on the Soviet Union, including the destruction of 200 major Soviet cities.

The dangers of atomic war are overrated. It would be hard on little, concentrated countries like England. In the United States we have lots of space.