Ludwig Quidde Quotes

Personally, I do not believe that we shall have greater armaments in the future than we have had in the past. On the contrary, I believe there will be a gradual diminution in this respect.

We want a rocket-free country. That’s what we want.

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.

There is an urgent need for disarmament of all kinds, but especially nuclear disarmament.

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

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.

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.

Thus, if armaments were curtailed without a secure peace and all countries disarmed proportionately, military security would have been in no way affected.

The goal [of disarmament] is no longer a dream. It is a practical matter of life or death. The risks inherent in disarmament pale in comparison to the risks inherent in an unlimited arms race...

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.

Disarmament offers the only effective way to bring militarism under control.

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…

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

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.

Our purpose [is] to invite the present-day civilization to cast aside the staggering burden of armament.

Disarment ... is a continuing imperative.

We in no way are naive to think that just because Russia and the United States agree to reduce their arsenals, that everyone else will fall in line.

Even a fool could see that one didn't need a war, nuclear or otherwise, to destroy oneself; the rising cost of weaponry could do that quite nicely.

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.

Some think the worst horrors of war might be avoided by an international agreement not to use atomic bombs. This is a vain hope.

It is my strong hope that an environment will be created in which both of our countries can cooperate for the realization of a world without nuclear weapons.

The world has placed chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in a separate category because their use constitutes a crime against all humanity.

Nuclear weapons are infinitely less important in our foreign policy than they were in the days of the Cold War. I don't think we need nuclear weapons any longer.

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.