Mohamed ElBaradei Quotes

Everybody has to chip in, I think, and see how we can have a functioning system of collective security where we do not continue to face the threat of countries trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction or particularly nuclear weapons.

Libya is a good example of a country that has come to a realization that weapons of mass destruction threaten more than assure, and I hope that will be followed by others.

When we're talking about technology that involves weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, there has to be an element of preemption.

I do not want our children and grandchildren to live in a world where everyday they fear some regional strongman with weapons of mass destruction. We need to send a message to these future would-be bullies: you will not be allowed to threaten the world.

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.

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

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.

I'm not concerned about weapons of mass destruction.

If we are addressing the issue of weapons of mass destruction, we need to send a uniform, consistent message that there is zero tolerance to any country who is developing weapons of mass destruction, North Korea included.

We have a moral imperative to keep up the search for something better than mutual assured destruction.

The overriding element of American security interest is to keep weapons of mass destruction under responsible control.

I would like to see invented a substance or a machine with such terrible power of mass destruction that war would thereby be made impossible forever.

Containment may have worked in the Cold War, but is not possible when dictators obtain weapons of mass destruction and are prepared to share them with terrorists who intend to inflict catastrophic casualties on the United States.

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.

We know they have weapons of mass destruction. We know they have active programs. There isn’t any debate about it.

The moral high ground in taking the first hit before attacking has been made obsolete by weapons of mass destruction….You cannot wait for a catastrophic event.

Today we are rightly in an era of disarmament and dismantlement of nuclear weapons. But in some countries nuclear weapons development still continues. Whether and when the various Nations of the World can agree to stop this is uncertain. But individual scientists can still influence this process by withholding their skills., Accordingly, I call on all scientists in all countries to cease and desist from work creating, developing, improving and manufacturing further nuclear weapons - and, for that matter, other weapons of potential mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons..

It is not delusional for Pakistan to fear that the United States is interested in de-nuking them. It is prudent paranoia.

There is an enormous amount of evidence that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, is doing his best to develop more lethal weapons, and funds and supports terrorism.

You probably don't need more weapons than what's required to destroy every city on earth. There's only 2,300 cities. So, the United States, by that criteria, only needs 2,300 nuclear weapons - well, we've got more than 25,000!

Unlike some of our neighbours, India does not believe in dirty bombs. We take non-proliferation very seriously.

The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery is a threat to both the Nato allies and Russia.

We need to make it very clear to the Iranians, the same way we made it clear to the Soviet Union and China, that their first use of nuclear weapons would result in the devastation of their nation.

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.