Arms Limitation Quotes

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...

I think people should have the right to bear arms, but they should be limited as to what kinds of guns they can have.

The present level of armaments could be taken as the starting point. It could be stipulated in an international treaty that these armaments should be simultaneously and uniformly reduced by a certain proportion in all countries.

We demand a strict and sweeping reduction of armaments by land and sea so that there shall be no competitive military program or naval building. Until agreements to this end have been made we advocate an army and navy adequate for our national safety.

A lot of guns there's no need for civilians to own those those are for military

All of us who have worked on the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks problem know that the deal we are making is in our best interest but for very practical reasons that the right-wing will never understand.

Advances in weaponry go much faster than arms control.

Well, I would love it if they could take all the guns away. Unfortunately, you can't do that so you hope that good people in the world have them to protect the people who can't protect themselves.

If there were no guns, we couldn't talk about it, ... You turn on TV, you see soldiers marching with guns. We only talk about things that's happening.

Guns make me very nervous. They're dangerous. I'm more of a pacifist than anyone could imagine.

So we are fulfilling our task in preventing serious armament stocks in Iraq within our possibilities.

all nations must disarm at the same time. It will not do at all … that some nations shall lay down their arms while others, their neighbours, remain armed. The peace of the world must be brought about by international agreement. All nations must agree to disarm simultaneously…

It is a mistake to isolate arms control from other areas of policy.... There is a danger that arms control will be a safety valve for an otherwise overly aggressive foreign policy.

Every nation will continue to arm for war until a day comes at which one or the other says, “Better a terrible end, than a terror without end” or “If we delay any longer, we shall be the weaker instead of the stronger”. Then the catastrophe will happen.

Disarmament without checks is but a shadow - and a community without law is but a shell.

I appeal to the responsibility of the blocs and the major powers, not to seek security in the arms race, but rather in a meeting for joint disarmament and arms limitations.

As a first step there must be an offer to achieve equality of rights in disarmament by abolishing the weapons forbidden to the Central Powers by the Peace Treaties.

Thus, if armaments were curtailed without a secure peace and all countries disarmed proportionately, military security would have been in no way affected.