Nuclear Quotes

The current situation of the earthquake, tsunami and the nuclear plants is in a way the most severe crisis in the 65 years since World War II.

The trend in the world right now is - not just in developed countries, but in developing countries including China and India - there is a movement to build more and more nuclear plants.

Individual scientists like myself - and many more conspicuous - pointed to the dangers of radioactive fallout over Canada if we were to launch nuclear weapons to intercept incoming bombers.

Nuclear energy is a baseload - meaning it's power that you can run any time you want, day or night - and carbon-free.

As long as we rationalize nuclear weapons as "necessary" in order to save American lives, then nuclear weapons will never be gotten rid of.

I see nuclear weapons as the ultimate evil, not just evil, but the ultimate evil with the potential to make life unlivable on this planet.

The two countries [Pakistan and India] have already come close to nuclear confrontation twice and this could get worse. So dealing with the relationship with India is extremely important.

I think that once the nuclear alternative happens, it's over. At the same time, we have to be prepared.

Impulsiveness is not a trait one would choose for a person with the power to launch the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

The greatest threat facing humanity is a radical Islamist regime meeting up with nuclear weapons.

I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons.

We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.

We must work toward the elimination of all nuclear weapons, and an end to policies which cause this country to move toward the weaponization of space.

We cannot tolerate comments of such hatred, such anti-Semitism, such intolerance. And these comments are all the more troubling given that we know of Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Our future on this planet, exposed as it is to nuclear annihilation, depends one one single factor: humanity must make a moral about-face.

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

Indeed, the whole human species is endangered, by nuclear weapons or by other means of wholesale destruction which further advances in science are likely to produce.

Both [Donald] Trump and Hillary [Clinton] want bigger military budgets and Hillary supports President Obama's one trillion dollar expenditure to so-called upgrade nuclear weapons. P

If nuclear energy is used for the sake of humanity, then I say yes. But if it is used destructively, then no.

The politicians always told us that the Cold War stand-off could only change by way of nuclear war. None of them believed that such systemic change was possible.

Solar, for example - which has typically been thought of as so expensive - is cheap when compared with, for example, the cost of cleaning up the Fukushima nuclear disaster and the Gulf.

The more patient we are, the closer the Iranians get to a nuclear weapon.

One of our gravest concerns is the entry of a nuclear device or materials into the U.S.

What are the implications of a China that may be on nuclear parity with the United States?

The United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

We have heard the rationales offered by the nuclear superpowers. We know who speaks for the nations. But who speaks for the human species? Who speaks for Earth?

I can't understand why anyone would want nuclear warheads. If you shoot them off, it's not like you can take over that country - all you do is kill millions of people.

Your easel is the nuclear sun of an uncommon universe.

The arms race is a race between nuclear weapons and ourselves.

I was 11 when I was molested. It was like a nuclear explosion going off in my life, destroying everything.

Our moral imperative is to work with all our powers for that day when the children of the world grow up without the fear of nuclear war.

So I think we should stay focused on the real problem in the Middle East. It's not Israel. It's these dictatorships that are developing nuclear weapons with the specific goal of wiping Israel away.

It's crazy that in a country where schools are falling apart, we're spending $20 billion on nuclear weapons.

You can guarantee that mining uranium will lead to nuclear waste. You can't guarantee that uranium mining will not lead to nuclear weapons.

The use of military force against Iran would be very dangerous. It would be very provocative. The only thing worse would be Iran being a nuclear power.

Nuclear power has died of an incurable attack of market forces and is way beyond any hope of revival, because the competitors are several-fold cheaper and are getting rapidly more so.

We should put away the militaristic outlook. The U.S. should start talking about disarmament, nuclear disarmament, of the region.

Nuclear energy people perceive the greenhouse effect as a fresh wind blowing at their back.

I have not taken a position on that nuclear option. My view is I'm not going to do anything until I come to that bridge. I'm not going to jump off the bridge until I come to it

Women don't go to war to kill other women. Wars and armies and nuclear weapons are essentially heterosexual hobbies.

Personally I would like to see that the nuclear age, in terms of power, does come, because there's no long-term future for developing countries without nuclear power.

Our immediate striving must be aimed at preventing what, in the present situation, is the greatest threat to the very survival of mankind, the nuclear threat.

Today, India is a nuclear weapons state.

In a nuclear war there would be no victors, only victims. The truth of peace requires that all ... strive for a progressive and concerted nuclear disarmament.

The Iranian government intends to use the nuclear program for peaceful purposes, but must convince international public opinion of that.

One point I like to stress is that we should think of coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear, as clean energy.

Measuring nuclear yield depends on multiple parameters - the location and number of instruments, the geology of the area, the location of the seismic station in relation to the test site.

Originally I had planned to revert to nuclear physics there, in particular the structure of the deuteron.

I think the writing of literature should give pleasure. What else should it be about? It is not nuclear physics. It actually has to give pleasure or it is worth nothing.

We are not afraid of nuclear weapons. The point is that if we had in fact wanted to build a nuclear bomb, we are brave enough to say that we want it. But we never do that.