Helen Suzman Quotes

The possession of highly developed armed forces by small nations is disastrous in all its consequences.

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.

When a nation is surrounded by weaponized nations, she has to equip herself.

Weapons are like money; no one knows the meaning of enough.

A nation, in order to be secure in its defense, has to be stronger than its potential enemy. Then what becomes of the defense of the other? Is he to have none?

If any county achieves absolute security, then all the rest of the countries around them have absolute insecurity.

The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them;

To deploy this [anti-ballistic missile system] would jeopardize our security rather than improve it.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

The contention that a standing army and navy is the best security of peace is about as logical as the claim that the most peaceful citizen is he who goes about heavily armed.

We will not negotiate with anyone about our weapons and defenses, and we will make and store as many weapons, facilities, and missiles as we need.

Ukraine is an industrialized nation that can produce their own weapons. We're talking about the defensive weapons, which help us just defensively.

Israel is a long way from facing a threat to its very existence. We are too strong, both economically and militarily, for that. If anything threatens Israel, it is this form of paranoid thought that makes us think: "Oh God, they're going to kill us in two seconds! What should we do?"

We won't always have the strongest military.

Competition in armament, both land and naval, is not only a terrible burden upon the people, but I believe it to be one of the greatest menaces to the peace of the world.

Adequate defense has been the catchword of every militarist for centuries.

Pakistan has made no mention of ending our tests. We have a missile program, and it is in the national interest whatever we want to do.

I know that Britain and the United States and others ship arms in the Middle East, 10 or maybe 100 times more than the Russian does.

The question of armaments, whether on land or sea, is the most immediately and intensely practical question connected with the future fortunes of nations and of mankind.

... the notion that the greater the preparation for war the smaller the probability of its occurrence might well appear a reductio ad absurdum of militarism, implying, as it does, that the only way to secure an eternal world peace is to concentrate the entire energy of all nations upon the art of war ...

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

The presence of these large, long-range, and clearly offensive weapons of sudden mass-destruction—constitutes an explicit threat to the peace and security of all the Americas...

Let no one expect us to disarm unilaterally. We are not a naive people.

The United States is the preeminent arms pusher worldwide.

I don't think we should be in the business of proliferating arms sales just to protect our industrial base.