Frederick Barton Maurice Quotes

I would be reluctant to suspend our capital ship building program until we have entered into an agreement for disarmament with other nations.

We demand a strict and sweeping reduction of armaments by land and sea so that there shall be no competitive military program or naval building. Until agreements to this end have been made we advocate an army and navy adequate for our national safety.

In the spirit of commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, we will strive to achieve real progress in disarmament and arms control.

The pens which write against disarmament are made with the same steel from which guns are made.

Any arms agreement should be verifiable.

Talking to the superpowers about disarmament is like talking to drug dealers about stopping drug deliveries.

We should, I believe, announce in no uncertain terms that we are against disarmament.

Arms control has to have a future, or none of us does.

all nations must disarm at the same time. It will not do at all … that some nations shall lay down their arms while others, their neighbours, remain armed. The peace of the world must be brought about by international agreement. All nations must agree to disarm simultaneously…

We are ready to cooperate with other nations to approximate disarmament, but merest prudence forbids that we disarm alone.

Disarmament has become the urgent imperative of our time. I do not say this because I equate the absence of arms to peace, or because I believe that bringing an end to the nuclear arms race automatically guarantees the peace, or because the elimination of nuclear warheads from the arsenals of the world will bring in its wake that change in attitude requisite to the peaceful settlement of disputes between nations. Disarmament is vital today, quite simply, because of the immense destructive capacity of which men dispose.

Disarment ... is a continuing imperative.

Limitation of armaments in itself is economically and financially important quite apart from security.

We have to admit that, notwithstanding all the efforts in which governments and peoples have participated, no corresponding change has been wrought in the aspect of the world's armaments.

The first condition of success for the League of Nations is, therefore, a firm understanding between the British Empire and the United States of America and France and Italy that there will be no competitive building up of fleets or armies between them.

Disarmament or limitation of armaments, which depends on the progress made on security, also contributes to the maintenance of peace.

Even a total and universal disarmament does not guarantee the maintenance of peace.

I know of no more important subject to the peace of Europe and the world than the reasonable reduction of armaments, especially in Europe, and of naval armaments throughout the world.

Do not hide behind utopian logic which says that until we have the perfect security environment, nuclear disarmament cannot proceed. This is old-think. This is the mentality of the Cold War era. We must face the realities of the 21st century. The Conference on Disarmament can be a driving force for building a safer world and a better future.

The Cold War's end pushed disarmament down most leaders' agendas. It's a sophisticated issue, which I think is one reason why it is not so hands-on to many people. It's not visceral. It's not like a starving child.

If the world is disarmed, and remains disarmed, there will be no more world wars.

The relationship of the two problems is rather the reverse. To a great extent disarmament is dependent on guarantees of peace. Security comes first and disarmament second.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative.

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

It has become impossible to give up the enterprise of disarmament without abandoning the whole great adventure of building up a collective peace system.