Quotes About Deterrence

My one suggestion going forward is, any felony committed against a woman should be a full-season suspension.

There's been a deliberate and systematic effort to convey to countries around the world, friends and foes, that if they cross the United States there's a price to pay.

From the horrible weapon which they were about to urge the United States to develop, Szilard, Teller and Wigner—"the Hungarian conspiracy," Merle Tuve was amused to call them—hoped for more than deterrence against German aggression.1194 They also hoped for world government and world peace, conditions they imagined bombs made of uranium might enforce.

If we have nuclear weapons, why can't we use them?

We still live in a world where if you have nuclear weapons, you are buying power; you are buying insurance against attack.

Capital punishment would be more effective as a preventive measure if it were administered prior to the crime.

Projecting weakness will not make us safer or discourage attacks against us. We need to show leadership and strength by demonstrating that we will not tolerate violent acts against our people, and we will not leave our citizens or our interests vulnerable to an attack.

So, we need to delegitimize the nuclear weapon, and by de-legitimizing... meaning trying to develop a different system of security that does not depend on nuclear deterrence.

Nuclear weapons present us with a paradox: We spend billions of dollars building and maintaining them in the hope that we never have to use them.

What has kept the world safe from the bomb since 1945 has not been deterrence, in the sense of fear of specific weapons, so much as it's been memory. The memory of what happened at Hiroshima.

Chemical weapons, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons should never be used.

It is deterrence that has prevented the use of nuclear weapons by all states that possess them since 1945.

Today, India is a nuclear weapons state.

The professed function of the nuclear weapons on each side is to prevent the other side from using their nuclear weapons. If that's all it is, then we've gotta as: how many nuclear weapons do you need to do that?

The purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter. The mission of deterrence to make all parties in possession of nuclear weapons never, ever use them.

But the nuclear powers still cling tenaciously to their weapons.

This means that the only function of nuclear weapons, while they exist, is to deter a nuclear attack.

As for the assertion that nuclear weapons prevent wars, how many more wars are needed to refute this arguments? Tens of millions have died in the many wars that have taken place since 1945.

To respond to North Korea by having our own nuclear weapons will not maintain peace on the Korean Peninsula and could lead to a nuclear arms race in Northeast Asia.

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

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

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

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.

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