Charles Horner Quotes

If we can deter the Soviet Union, if we can deter North Korea, why on earth can't we deter Iran?

One hour ago, President Johnson informed me that Egyptian forces are preparing an attack on Israeli positions and that this attack is to be launched. If such a thing happens, then the United States will consider itself freed from the commitments it gave to the USSR to exercise restraint.

Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.

If Japan had been near to either England or France, war would have broken out long ago.

The United States has dealt with the Middle East and surrounding regions for many decades in the context of the Cold War.

We cannot allow the world’s worst leaders to threaten us with the world’s worst weapons.

We ought to nuke North Korea right about now just to give the world a warning.

While immensely beneficial to Seoul, is this U.S. guarantee to fight Korean War II, 64 years after the first, wise? Russia, China and Japan retain the freedom to decide whether and how to react, should war break out. Why do we not?

The way that Soviet intelligence tried to reshape the balance of power in the Middle East is essential to understand the developments that led to the outbreak of the Six-Day War.

By God, war is not an option for two nuclear countries.

I don't think Russia could start a war by attacking any of the NATO member states.

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

If America would withdraw from South Korea, there could be a power struggle between such as China and Japan.

American presence is, you know, the major cause of balance of power and the stability in this region.

The reason the United States is not so likely to invade Iran is precisely because of the lessons learned from Iraq. And conversely, the Iranian push towards nuclear capability is calculated to deter invasions like the kind deposing Saddam Husain.

During the Cold War, America took sides not only in disputes between Arab countries, but also in debates within them.

The decision to use the atom bomb on Japanese cities, and the consequent buildup of enormous nuclear arsenals, was made by governments, on the basis of political and military perceptions.

After spending the 1980s building up Saddam's Iraq as a counterweight to Iran, U.S. policy abruptly reversed course with his invasion of Kuwait and has since tried to cut him down to size. The policy is called 'containment,' but the question is, containment of what?

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.

The United Nations passed so-called sanctions again on North Korea, and they've said they 'will exercise their preemptive right to a nuclear attack.' I don't think this ought to be taken kindly.

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

North Korea has taught a great lesson to all the countries in the world, especially the rogue countries of dictatorships or whatever: if you don't want to be invaded by America, get some nuclear weapons.

Certainly the existence of these huge nuclear force was important for the ultimate confrontation, let's say, over western Europe. You just can't use them to deal with a situation like Afghanistan.

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.

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