Ballistic Missile Defense Quotes

It is absolutely right that President Reagan considers SDI and thank goodness people considered nuclear research before the last war.

Are we not concerned, for example, by the growing danger related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missile technology? All of this poses a clear threat to the world, to the region. However, we have obvious points of convergence that are related to our interests.

To deploy this [anti-ballistic missile system] would jeopardize our security rather than improve it.

Nato allies have been looking at various missile-defence options for some time. Nato itself is developing protections for our deployed troops.

We should develop anti-satellite weapons because we could not have prevailed without them in 'Red Storm Rising'.

In fact, the same difficulties faced by Reagan in the 1980-s are still there [in the beginning of 21 century]: how do you hit a bullet with a bullet? The technology is getting better, but it still is focused on one interceptor knocking down one missile. In war, there would be many more challenges, more chaos, more uncertainty.

If you're Iran's minister of defense, I think you'd try to develop at least one nuclear weapon to save yourself from what happened to Iraq.

The Aegis Ashore sites in Poland and Romania are designed to counter long-range ballistic missiles that may be launched from other nations, outside of the Euro-Atlantic area, against our European NATO partners.

It is not unimaginable to have military options to respond to North Korean nuclear capability. What's unimaginable to me is allowing a capability that would allow a nuclear weapon to land in Denver, Colorado. That's unimaginable to me. So my job will be to develop military options to make sure that doesn't happen.

What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?

Under Obama-Clinton, our ballistic missile defense capability has been degraded at the very moment in the United States history and its allies we are facing the strongest, most heightened missile threat that we have ever, ever had.

There's no debate in the world as to whether people have weapons of mass destruction... We all know that. A trained ape knows that.

Just as we can no longer pretend that ducking under wooden desks will keep us safe from a nuclear bomb, we must no longer pretend that a large nuclear stockpile will protect us from the most immediate security threats the United States faces.

When contemplating a shield that would protect America for incoming missiles, Democrats suddenly became hardheaded fiscal conservatives. For the first time in recorded history, liberals were concerned about the cost and usefulness of a government program. These people believe federally funded art therapy for the homeless will pay for itself. That you can take to the bank. But a shield to repel incoming nuclear missiles from American soil they said, was too expensive and wouldn't work.

We've gotten a long way on missile defense. We know how to do it. We know how to take down incoming warheads, but we need to do a lot more work in order to be - to deploy a system that'll defend the United States against those kinds of limited strikes that might be possible by a nuclear armed North Korea or Iran.

South Korea and the U.S. share common interests with regard to the North Korean nuclear issue, so I promise that South Korea will fully consult with the U.S. on the deployment of THAAD.

We would take a little bit of money out of a huge increase in ballistic missile defense and put it in a place where it will do a lot of good, namely, in targeted pay increases to our enlisted personnel, particularly our NCOs and our junior warrant officers.

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find - and there will be plenty.

I don't want nations feeling like that they can bully ourselves and our allies. I want to have a ballistic defense system so that we can make the world more peaceful, and at the same time I want to reduce our own nuclear capacities to the level commiserate with keeping the peace.

As these potential adversaries grow their missile programs, U.S. military facilities in Asia and the Middle East, as well as our allies, are increasingly in range with the United States homeland, and we are really absolutely and potentially being threatened. And within two years, we will absolutely have a real threat. They'll be able to reach us so easily the way it's going right now.

Obviously, the United States military can destroy any of Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

But scientists on both sides of the iron curtain played a very significant role in maintaining the momentum of the nuclear arms race throughout the four decades of the Cold War.

You look at Iran, you look at North Korea, you look at terrorists, we don't even know where to look. We don't know where to look. But believe me, you can look all over, so we are going to do that. We need a form of shield. We want to protect our country.

There are nuclear weapons in China, Iran, Korea and Pakistan. It wouldn't take much to send a couple of warheads off on this planet somewhere that would cause a lot of environmental damage, then if you have got someone who wants to retaliate you have real problems.

We do not have weapons of mass destruction.