Quotes About Policy

It's not fair for the U.S. to spend, on arms and weapons, so much money and then not spend on health care the money that is needed.

Semi-automatic weapons have no socially redeeming purpose.

U.S. nuclear weapons that are available for presidential use are targeted against broad ocean areas.

The objective of nuclear-weapons policy should not be solely to decrease the number of weapons in the world, but to make the world safer - which is not necessarily the same thing.

I've had people say to me, 'Well, I enjoy going to the firing range and using the assault weapons.' But the pleasure derived from that compared to the horrendous damage that it can do, we believe that the damage warrants banning assault weapons.

The problem with cyber weapons for a country like ours is the ability to control them.

Some amount of fear of nuclear weapons is necessary for nuclear deterrence to work.

Nuclear weapons are intrinsically neither moral nor immoral, though they are more prone to immoral use than most weapons.

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.

I'm not concerned about weapons of mass destruction.

We have got thousands of nuclear weapons in order to achieve deterrence.

I agree with the many who consider freezing all sorts of weapons systems a first step in a realistic disarmament policy.

If the militarily most powerful - and least threatened - states need nuclear weapons for their security, how can one deny such security to countries that are truly insecure? The present nuclear policy is a recipe for proliferation. It is a policy for disaster.

To sum up, there is no evidence that a world without nuclear weapons would be a dangerous world. On the contrary, it would be a safer world, as I will show later.

Some day, somebody is going to have to start talking about what happens to us all a decade from now if we let these North Koreans and the Iranians go forward with their nuclear weapons program.

We need to stop spending money on those weapons systems that do not advance national security.

Indeed, the very first resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations - adopted unanimously - called for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

We're not looking at banning all weapons.

Some people have said, in so many words, that I'm kind of wooly-headed in believing that the Iranians would see not having nuclear weapons as more in their security interest than not.

I've been accused of wanting to allow terrorists to have weapons to attack America.

We need to ban assault weapons. We need to ban the high-capacity clips and magazines. We need serious background information, system upgrade.

President Obama has made it clear that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

I support an assault weapons ban, and I'll tell you why. We already have one in California, so I don't support doing anything above what we do in California.

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.