Quotes About Conflict

Weapons of mass destruction violate more than individual lives - they cross international borders and jeopardize all people. They also drain resources that could be used instead for medicines, schools and other life-saving supplies. We must come together with even greater determination to prevent a WMD nightmare.

Once it was suggested that Saddam Hussein might give his weaponry to terrorists, or might use weapons himself in the region, then it became hard for the Democrats to say, 'Well, that can't happen.'

Remember, weapons of mass destruction don't mean missiles.

We must take steps to prevent further nuclear weapons development or modernization.

We've already seen proliferation. We started it with Britain, then France. Then we benignly let the Israelis do it. The Pakistanis and the Indians have recently done it. The Chinese have nuclear weapons.

The politicians in this world... have at their command weapons of mass destruction far more complex than their own thinking processes.

I believe absolutely that words must be treated as material weapons, every invective or threat as violence and aggression.

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.

I don't think soldiers should be anywhere in the world. I mean, that is a moral and a basic philosophy. I think that the only way to end wars is to have no military and to find other ways in which - I think we should suspend all nuclear weapons.

Under Saddam Hussein, the nation of Iraq possessed and used chemical weapons against both their own Kurdish population and Iranian military forces.

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.

I don't think that they have many of the scientists who were involved in the weapons program to talk to at this time, and there were thousands of people, engineers and scientists, they know where the weapons are.

Cyber weapons won't go away, and their spread can't be controlled. Instead, as we've done for other destructive technologies, the world needs to establish a set of principles to determine the proper conduct of governments regarding cyber conflict.

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.

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.

I didn't promote war when I was a weapons inspector.

The Afghans did not have sophisticated weapons like the Soviets did, but with their faith they defeated a superpower.

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

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

Sanctions aren't about weapons of mass destruction. People need to understand that.

Libel actions, when we look at them in perspective, are an ornament of a civilized society. They have replaced, after all, at least in most cases, a resort to weapons in defense of a reputation.

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