Quotes About Security

Something is very wrong when our federal and state governments have a high tolerance for the unrestricted distribution of weapons of mass destruction, and it would be wrong to let this deadly form of neglect continue to facilitate bloodshed across America.

The sole purpose of nuclear weapons must be to deter their use by others.

If Iran and North Korea, by some horrible, devilish, nightmarish scenario, got together and went to war at the same time, one against Saudi Arabia and one against South Korea, I don't know what we would do about that. I don't know that we could stop them short of using nuclear weapons.

Nuclear arms kill many people all at once, but other weapons kill many people, little by little, every day, everywhere in the world.

We have an active program. We have nuclear weapons, we are a nuclear power. We have an advanced missiles program.

We will not negotiate with anyone about our weapons and defenses, and we will make and store as many weapons, facilities, and missiles as we need.

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.

No amount of sanctioning will persuade North Korea to give up nuclear weapons, nor will China step up and solve the problem for us.

It's not a radical statement: all of us should agree that we want to make sure that weapons stay out of the hands of people that could use them to hurt others, especially after the tragedies we've seen in Charleston, Newtown, Wilkinsburg and too many other communities.

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.

I do not agree that South Korea needs to develop our own nuclear weapons or relocate tactical nuclear weapons in the face of North Korea's nuclear threat.

Although every step must be taken to protect against a chemical or biological attack in America, our nation would survive the use of those weapons as we did when anthrax was mailed to our Capitol and other targets.

A fly cannot go in unless it stops somewhere; therefore weapons, fuel, food, money will not go to Afghanistan unless the neighbors of Afghanistan are working, are cooperating, either being themselves the origin or the transit.

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.

In any event, the problem in Iran is much bigger than weapons. The problem is the terrorist regime that seeks the weapons. The regime must go.

In the post-9/11 world you cannot give him the benefit of the doubt. As a result of our going into Iraq, not only is Saddam Hussein gone, but Qaddafi has given up his weapons of mass destruction and tremendous progress is being made in Iraq.

In a world which is armed to its teeth with nuclear weapons, every quarrel or difference of opinion may lead to violence of a kind quite different from what is possible today.

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 visited the Chinese side last year. The Chinese are in a constant state of military readiness. They have all their nuclear weapons in the area, presumably trained on targets across the border.

In the face of terrorism, a united front is one of the strongest weapons.