Quotes About International

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

Our - our friends can't trust us anymore. You know, Ukraine was a nuclear-armed state. They gave away their nuclear arms with the understanding that we would protect them. We won't even give them offensive weapons.

I am very much against weapons in space. And I wish we could be spearheading that program to come to some kind of international agreement so that doesn't happen. That is my only - fear - in further space exploration like always, we hope it doesn't get abused.

We insist that the international community cannot depend on any country with weapons of mass destruction which has relations with terrorists, and which allows itself the luxury of not respecting the law and of defying the international community.

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

But it cannot follow that because weapons and troops are now being deployed we are bound to go to war.

Had the United States not acted in Iraq, Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi would likely not have declared his weapons programs, submitted to international inspections and voluntarily dismantled its programs.

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

Saddam Hussein has openly admitted to the rest of the world that he had weapons of mass destruction. He used those weapons to kill his own people.

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

Several studies, and a number of public statements by senior military and political personalities, testify that - except for disputes between the present nuclear states - all military conflicts, as well as threats to peace, can be dealt with using conventional weapons.

If we are really anxious not to have nuclear weapons in Iran, the first thing is to call an international conference on abolishing all nuclear weapons, including Israeli nuclear weapons.

The alliance should agree... to an effective NATO role against the new threats presented by international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

I can tell you one thing, Iran is closer to developing nuclear weapons today than it was a week ago, or a month ago or a year ago. It's just moving on with its efforts.

The larger picture here is that a North Korea with nuclear weapons adds to the larger proliferation risk.

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.

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

I feel relieved that we discovered that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons.

I believe that the topic of chemical weapons is critically important for international peace and security, and I take note of the ongoing debate over what course of action should be taken by the international community. All those actions should be taken within the framework of the U.N. Charter, as a matter of principle.

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

The possibility that terrorist groups could obtain weapons of mass destruction should not be dismissed as a fiction. This is a horrific threat the international community should take seriously. As long as these weapons exist, so, too, does the risk of their use - by accident or design.

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

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.