Abdul Qadeer Khan Quotes

It would be our policy to use nuclear weapons wherever we felt it necessary to protect our forces and achieve our objectives.

Dwight Eisenhower… supported the nuclearization of the military and the militarization of nuclear weapons as a cost saving way of deterring the Soviets. Under Eisenhower, custody or nuclear weapons shifted from the civilian Atomic Energy Commission to the military.

There was a general consensus to go for the nuclear test. The whole nation wanted it, and it was done properly.

You look at Russia's doing with their nuclear capability and the newness of their capability, and look at we're - what we're doing, and nobody wants to do that with respect to nukes because nukes are horrible. But you have countries that are going out of their way to do things that we're not doing. And we have to be very, very careful.

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.

Our nuclear weapons are meant purely as a deterrent against nuclear adventure by an adversary.

It's a near miracle that nuclear war has so far been avoided.

This means that the only function of nuclear weapons, while they exist, is to deter a nuclear attack.

In the late 1950s a major topic under discussion was whether Canada should acquire nuclear weapons.

The greatest achievement of America in the last 70 years has been the prevention of a post Nagasaki nuclear proliferation.

The atomic issue was a natural path into political issues.

We will use nuclear weapons whenever it serves our vital interests.

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!

By the time Congress is even authorized to act after the President has launched nuclear weapons, there may no longer be a civilized world in which to do so.

India's nuclear-test blasts have pretty much put to rest the myth of Indians being peace-loving Gandhians.

To have the ability to destroy all and not to do it was one of the hard tests humanity passed - but only just - in the middle of the twentieth century.

The only use for an atomic bomb is to keep somebody else from using one.

I think one country with nuclear weapons is one country too many.

We continue to have nuclear weapons relied on as a weapon of choice. If that policy were to continue, we continue to have countries who are in a security bind, if you like, or perceive themselves to be in security bind to look for acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Even with the best intentions, you can have a nuclear war, a nuclear holocaust, through miscalculation, through accidents.

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.

My feelings of revulsion and foreboding about nuclear weapons had not changed an iota since 1945, and they have never left me. Since I was 14, the overriding objective of my life has been to prevent the occurrence of nuclear war.

The whole idea of a nuclear system is to have a deterrent where we decide if we're going to use it.

Israel has a sizeable nuclear arsenal and could retaliate if it were attacked.

Individual scientists like myself - and many more conspicuous - pointed to the dangers of radioactive fallout over Canada if we were to launch nuclear weapons to intercept incoming bombers.