Jenny Shipley Quotes

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.

On our nuclear weapons we should draw a mushroom cloud and put underneath it, 'Made in America by lazy and illiterate Americans and tested in Japan.'

We are told that the possession of nuclear weapons - in some cases even the testing of these weapons - is essential for national security. But this argument can be made by other countries as well.

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

Nuclear weapons continue to occupy a unique place in global security affairs. No other weapons, in my opinion, anyway, match their potential for prompt and long-term damage and their strategic impact.

We continue to have nuclear weapons relied on as a weapon of choice. If that policy were to continue, we continue to have countries who are in a security bind, if you like, or perceive themselves to be in security bind to look for acquisition of nuclear weapons.

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.

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

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.

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

The United States government first learned of the diversion of the W-88 nuclear warhead design in late 1995.

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

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.

Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation are not utopian ideals. They are critical to global peace and security.

If the militarily most powerful - and least threatened - states need nuclear weapons for their security, how can one deny such security to countries that are truly insecure? The present nuclear policy is a recipe for proliferation. It is a policy for disaster.

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

This Arab Islamic nation must obtain a nuclear bomb. Without a nuclear bomb, we will continue to be oppressed.

Any possession of nuclear weapons in the Middle East is a danger.

Nuclear proliferation is inevitable … the "middle powers" of the world are simply not going to accept having zero weapons while the United States has thousands.

Nuclear weapons are the greatest national security risk to the United States, and they are the most important weapons in our arsenal.

The fewer nuclear weapons possessed by the fewest countries is safer, not only because of the possibility of a nuclear accident but also a nuclear war.

Unless Iran’s leadership believes that the costs of building a nuclear weapon will be greater than the benefit those weapons will provide, the Islamic Republic will become a nuclear-armed state.

Dwight Eisenhower… supported the nuclearization of the military and the militarization of nuclear weapons as a cost saving way of deterring the Soviets. Under Eisenhower, custody or nuclear weapons shifted from the civilian Atomic Energy Commission to the military.

There is going to be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. And you are going to see it in Egypt, in Turkey, in the Emirates. All of those people will want that.

It is most regrettable that nuclear energy is being harnessed for making nuclear weapons.