Gholamreza Aghazadeh Quotes

We have a moral imperative to keep up the search for something better than mutual assured destruction.

Disarmament requires trust.

I came here as a practical man, to talk, not simply on the question of peace and war, but to treat another question which is of hardly less importance - the enormous and burdensome standing armaments which it is the practice of modern Governments to sustain in time of peace.

Where there is no trust, how can we give up our weapons first?

We do not believe that a nuclear war should be fought and we do not believe that a nuclear war can be won.

We must shift the arms race into a 'peace race'.

Politicians - well, first of all, they should get rid of nuclear weapons, I think.

The surest way to prevent war is not to fear it.

Libya is a good example of a country that has come to a realization that weapons of mass destruction threaten more than assure, and I hope that will be followed by others.

Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation are not utopian ideals. They are critical to global peace and security.

For every security measure, there is a counter measure that breeds further insecurity. The acquisition by Pakistan or Iran of a nuclear capability neutralizes the security achieved by Israel’s own nuclear capability. Non-governmental terrorism neutralizes governmental military superiority. Chemical weapons neutralize the security of cement walls.

I would like to see invented a substance or a machine with such terrible power of mass destruction that war would thereby be made impossible forever.

The way to win an atomic war is to make sure it never starts.

The distinction between preparations made with the intention of going to war and preparations against attack is it true distinction, clear and definite than the mind of those who build up armaments. But it is a distinction that is not obvious or certain to others. The moral is obvious: it is that that armaments lead inevitably to war.

I saw our bombs as political resources for peace.

Today nuclear weapons are a blunt instrument. Problems cannot be solved through bombs. They are of little use. We need logic.

The Mutual Security Act was intended not to fight a war but to prevent a war.

Disarmament has become the urgent imperative of our time. I do not say this because I equate the absence of arms to peace, or because I believe that bringing an end to the nuclear arms race automatically guarantees the peace, or because the elimination of nuclear warheads from the arsenals of the world will bring in its wake that change in attitude requisite to the peaceful settlement of disputes between nations. Disarmament is vital today, quite simply, because of the immense destructive capacity of which men dispose.

In Europe itself it is not probable that war will ever absolutely cease until science discovers some destroying force so simple in its administration, so horrible in its effects, that all art, all gallantry, will be at an end, and battles will be massacres which the feelings of mankind will be unable to endure.

Nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary a choice of either a humiliating defeat or a nuclear war.

I built a nuclear option to get peace, not to have bombs. Our enemies learned that they could not destroy us.

If we wish to convince countries like Iran that the development of nuclear weapons is not in their best interest, we need to demonstrate that maintaining or enhancing our own arsenal is not in our interest.

It is not important what the other side says or means. What is important are the military capabilities of the other side.

We will prevent war, whatever it takes.

International peace and security depend on certain taboos that are easily recognized when they are broken. It can be more important for an intervention to take place because nuclear or chemical or biological weapons are used as opposed to just measuring how many people are killed.