Des Browne Quotes

Look, Israel doesn't intend to introduce nuclear weapons, but if people are afraid that we have them, why not? It's a deterrent.

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.

Nuclear disarmament is one of the greatest legacies we can pass on to future generations.

But beyond all that, the question that is continually begged is why isn't America leading the way toward total abolition of nuclear weapons.

If we are really anxious not to have nuclear weapons in Iran, the first thing is to call an international conference on abolishing all nuclear weapons, including Israeli nuclear weapons.

We are categorically against proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Above all else, we need a reaffirmation of political commitment at the highest levels to reducing the dangers that arise both from existing nuclear weapons and from further proliferation.

The crucial thing is to arouse the awareness that as a matter of human conscience we can never permit the people of any country to fall victim to nuclear weapons, and for each individual to express their refusal to continue living in the shadow of the threat they pose.

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

The lesson of the Cold War is that against nuclear weapons, only nuclear weapons can hold the peace.

We must eliminate all nuclear weapons in order to eliminate the grave risk they pose to our world. This will require persistent efforts by all countries and peoples. A nuclear war would affect everyone, and all have a stake in preventing this nightmare.

The nuclear weapon is obsolete. I want to get rid of them all.

But the nuclear powers still cling tenaciously to their weapons.

Unanimously: There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons; By eleven votes to three: There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such;

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

Maintaining a U. S. Nuclear Arsenal presents only one benefit today: deterring the use of nuclear weapons by others. Thus, there is simply no reason for nuclear weapons to play a central role in U. S. Defense Policy any longer.

If we wish to convince countries like Iran that the development of nuclear weapons is not in their best interest, we need to demonstrate that maintaining or enhancing our own arsenal is not in our interest.

Our ultimate goal is that Iran never have a nuclear bomb.

Our goal is simple: to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The no-first-use policy for nuclear weapons was a well thought out stand... We don't intend to reverse it.

The second touchstone for America I think unquestionably was pushing to conclusion the program we had with the Russians to control the Soviet nuclear arsenal. I tend to think that more than anything else, that will come back to haunt us.

When nuclear weapons were an elite club of five relatively sane world powers, the Left was convinced the planet was about to go ka-boom any minute, and the handful of us who survived would be walking in a nuclear winter wonderland. Now anyone with a few thousand bucks and an unlisted number in Islamabad in his Rolodex can get a nuke, and the Left couldn't care less.

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

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.