Mordechai Vanunu Quotes

Long before the terrifying potential of the arms race was recognized, there was a widespread instinctive abhorrence of nuclear weapons, and a strong desire to get rid of them.

The most dangerous thing Iraq could have ever had was a nuclear weapon. The nuclear weapon Iraq was trying to build was not deliverable by bomb or ballistic missile. It was a large, bulky device that they hoped to bury and set off to let the world know they had a nuclear weapon. They never achieved that.

We have an active program. We have nuclear weapons, we are a nuclear power. We have an advanced missiles program.

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

Nuclear weapons offer us nothing but a balance of terror, and a balance of terror is still terror.

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.

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.

Experts say that Iraq may have nuclear weapons. That's bad news - they may have a nuclear bomb. Now the good news is that they have to drop it with a camel.

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.

A total nuclear freeze is counterproductive - especially now, when technology is rapidly changing and the Soviets have some important strategic advantages.

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.

It's very certain that North Korea is developing nuclear weapons for offensive purposes. They don't need nuclear weapons to defend their own country.

Everyone knows that Israel has nuclear weapons, but no one is talking about it. The world doesn't want nuclear weapons - not in Israel, not in the Middle East and not anywhere in the world.

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.

Iran is actively pursuing the development of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles.

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

As far as U.S. intelligence knows, Iran is developing nuclear capacities, but they don't know if they are trying to develop nuclear weapons or not. Chances are they're developing what's called 'nuclear capability,' which many states have. That is the ability to have nuclear weapons if they decide to do it. That's not a crime.

The Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons would be infinitely more costly than any scenario you can imagine to stop it.

Nobody wants any country to have nuclear weapons.

There is only one thing worse than one nation having the atomic bomb -- that's two nations having it.

To be a major power, a country must have nuclear weapons.

We can do better than condone a world in which nuclear weapons are accepted as commonplace.

Every thinking person fears nuclear war, and every technological nation plans for it.

There are two groups of people in the world, the Anglo Saxons and the Soviets who have been stockpiling nuclear weapons. France will not accept a position of permanent and massive inferiority.

I say in all sincerity that the nuclear arms race has no military purpose. Wars cannot be fought with nuclear weapons; their existence only adds to our perils because of the illusions which they have generated.