Quotes About Security

There's an abiding interest by the United States, by the American people, and by anybody with his eyes set in his head, to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction, yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for security - and indeed to continue to refine their capacities and postulate plans for their use.

Countries that perceive themselves to be vulnerable can be expected to try to redress that vulnerability - and in some cases, they will pursue clandestine weapons programs.

Whether weapons exist in Iraq, Saddam Hussein or post-Saddam Hussein, it is a serious enough issue that require that we continue to go and make sure that Iraq does not have weapons.

The threat that Syria might transfer more advanced weapons to Hezbollah has existed for a long time.

All nuclear material in weapons programmes must be subject one day to binding international verification.

We have a legal and moral obligation to rid our world of nuclear tests and nuclear weapons.

When we put an end to nuclear tests, we get closer to eliminating all nuclear weapons.

It is truly vital for the United States to assure that it is not attacked with weapons of mass destruction; to prevent wars in other countries from spreading onto American soil; and to maintain access to global sea lanes on which our economy depends. Beyond that, there is little or nothing in the world that should draw the United States to war.

The gravest risks from al Qaeda combine its affinity for big targets and its announced desire for weapons of mass destruction.

The U.S. government has known since the early 1990s about Soviet-era smallpox weapons, and collected circumstantial evidence of programs elsewhere.

My journalistic mission was straightforward: to await the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Nobody knew quite when this would be. But the diplomacy - the meetings in the U.N. security council, the allegations about weapons of mass destruction, the martial language of Tony Blair and George W. Bush - all suggested a war was brewing.

If Israel sees weapons moving toward its border, it acts.

We are categorically against proliferation of nuclear weapons.

In the 1990s, the United States offered to help North Korea with its energy needs if it gave up its nuclear weapons programme.

I'll remind you that the West signed a deal with North Korea, said it would make the world a safer place, and, of course, all the words evaporated, and North Korea acquired nuclear weapons.

There is no entity in the world that will dare attack Israel with chemical weapons.

Israel specifically does not want Syria to hand over weapons, chemical or conventional, to Hezbollah.

Everyone knows that Israel has nuclear weapons, but no one is talking about it. The world doesn't want nuclear weapons - not in Israel, not in the Middle East and not anywhere in the world.

One of the biggest problems that Egypt faces is the lack of border security - the importation of weapons on their way to Gaza, for example, coming out of Sudan.

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.

I like the idea of federal employees licensed to carry weapons who are also heavily medicated; it just works for me on all sorts of levels.

I don't think you can perpetrate war crimes with defensive weapons, with air defense systems.

We should not approve an agreement that fails to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and does nothing to address Iranian behavior that threatens our allies and our interests.