Military Reduction Quotes

Disarmament offers the only effective way to bring militarism under control.

After every major conflict - World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the fall of the Soviet Union - what happened was that we ultimately hollowed out the force, largely by doing deep across-the-board cuts.

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.

Absolutely without firing a shot and instead of 175,000 American troops deployed overseas we now have 15,000.

Limitation of armaments in itself is economically and financially important quite apart from security.

There can be no true disarmament without peace, and there can be no real peace without very material disarmament.

We want a rocket-free country. That’s what we want.

We have accomplished our mission of stopping Iraq's drive to take over Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East. We should begin to reduce our forces in Saudi Arabia, ever so slowly, and look to a more multinational force to keep the peace.

Within 120 days, we’ll win this war and get all U.S. troops out of the country, except 30,000

We do need our defense capabilities. It is a fact that the cuts we are facing today and the cuts that Senator [Ted] Cruz would have supported would leave us with an even smaller Air Force and a smaller Navy than the one we are going to be left with.

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

Reduce US military presence in Iraq; and bring in neighbors.

Personally, I do not believe that we shall have greater armaments in the future than we have had in the past. On the contrary, I believe there will be a gradual diminution in this respect.

We stand for the dismantling of foreign military bases. We stand for a reduction of armed forces and armaments in areas where military confrontation is especially dangerous, above all in central Europe.

We will be drawing down some troops. If the president wants to try to turn that into the beginning of a success, he actually, I think, has some opportunity.

Disarment ... is a continuing imperative.

I urge Governments to considerably reduce funds allocated to the military, not only as a disarmament issue, but also as a potential contributor to social and environmental protection and call for the holding of referenda on this issue worldwide.

Of course, it's imperative that we stabilize Iraq and quickly reduce our armed role there.

think that the external situation has also changed somewhat. The reduction of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan has, in a sense, reduced how inflamed the situation on the Pakistani border regions was and is.

A sagging economy, a soaring national debt, and an increasingly restive Congress pushed Obama to order troop reductions that are both deeper and faster than recommended by his military commanders.

I give you my word that there will be no great armaments

A ten per cent reduction in military expenditures per year would be reasonable, coupled with a programme of retraining the workforce and redirecting the resources in a manner that creates employment and advances social welfare. I also encourage all States to contribute to the UN's annual Report on Military Expenditures by submitting complete data on national defence budgets.