Mitchell Reiss Quotes

As long as some of us choose to rely on nuclear weapons, we continue to risk that these same weapons will become increasingly attractive to others.

In the end, for all of Obama's grand rhetoric on ridding the world of nuclear weapons, history has doomed him to preside over the emergence of two rogue nuclear regimes (North Korea and Iran).

I agree that a nuclear Iran is extremely dangerous, and I believe that it must be prevented.

The North Koreas of the world are trying very hard to acquire the material they need to acquire nuclear weapons, as is the case with Iran.

The world should be very clear about making sure that Iran does not get nuclear weapons, period.

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.

If we are to assume that North Korea becomes a nuclear-power state, of course the danger of having an all-out nuclear war, that possibility is very slim.

The greatest achievement of America in the last 70 years has been the prevention of a post Nagasaki nuclear proliferation.

Why should every country of the world not develop nuclear weapons now that America may nuke anyone at any time? … Those of us in Pakistan and India who have long fought against nuclearization of the subcontinent have been temporarily rendered speechless

The greatest threat that the world faces is a nuclear Iran. A nuclear North Korea is already troubling enough.

We don't need another nuclear arms race to proceed a pace and then to encourage other countries to become very, to develop these kinds of capabilities also. This is not what we need.

You look at Russia's doing with their nuclear capability and the newness of their capability, and look at we're - what we're doing, and nobody wants to do that with respect to nukes because nukes are horrible. But you have countries that are going out of their way to do things that we're not doing. And we have to be very, very careful.

We still live in a world where if you have nuclear weapons, you are buying power; you are buying insurance against attack.

I think one country with nuclear weapons is one country too many.

It is not viable for one country to demand a right to increase and upgrade its nuclear weapons capabilities while asking others to eliminate theirs.

We must take steps to prevent further nuclear weapons development or modernization.

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

Some day, somebody is going to have to start talking about what happens to us all a decade from now if we let these North Koreans and the Iranians go forward with their nuclear weapons program.

Iran's goal is not to become another North Korea - a nuclear weapons possessor but a pariah in the international community - but rather Brazil or Japan, a technological powerhouse with the capacity to develop nuclear weapons if the political winds were to shift, while remaining a nonnuclear weapons state.

We are categorically against any new military nuclear power, be it Iran, be it North Korea, be it anyone.

But the nuclear powers still cling tenaciously to their weapons.

When George W. Bush came into office, North Korea had maybe one nuclear weapon and verifiably wasn't producing any more.

It's a near miracle that nuclear war has so far been avoided.

A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.

It is of the greatest importance that people and governments in many more countries than ours should realize that it is more dangerous to have access to nuclear arms than not to possess them.