U. S. Office of Civilian Defense Quotes

In my school as a young girl, they taught us that we would be protected from the atomic bomb if we got under the desk.

The lesson of history is when a war starts every nation will ultimately use whatever weapon it has available. ... Therefore, we must expect that if another war — a serious war — breaks out, we will use nuclear energy in some form.

The first use of the nuclear weapon gives a great advantage to the user.

Every thinking person fears nuclear war, and every technological nation plans for it.

In a nuclear age, each of us is threatened when peace is not secured everywhere.

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

It is hard to seriously suggest that from a national-security standpoint, 1,000 warheads are not enough to protect the United States. Such an arsenal is literally overkill, sufficient to destroy every major population center on the planet outside of our borders.

… literature is the only consciousness we possess and that its role as consciousness must inform us of our ability to comprehend the hideous danger of nuclear power.

… use of high yield nuclear weapons invariably created adverse public opinion … Greater emphasis should be placed on small atomic weapons.

The Atomic Age is here to stay - but are we?

As long as some of us choose to rely on nuclear weapons, we continue to risk that these same weapons will become increasingly attractive to others.

Anyone who saw Nagasaki would suddenly realize that they'd been kept in the dark by the United States government as to what atomic bombs can do.

Japan is the only country in the world which suffered from the scourge of nuclear weapons.

The atomic bomb means the end of world war.

Nut With A Nuke

A nuclear weapon is not just a football that you can use at will.

In the real world of real political leaders a decision that would bring even one hydrogen bomb on one city of one's own country would be recognized as a catastrophic blunder.

If the Third World War is fought with nuclear weapons, the fourth will be fought with bows and arrows.

I say in all sincerity that the nuclear arms race has no military purpose. Wars cannot be fought with nuclear weapons; their existence only adds to our perils because of the illusions which they have generated.

The papers are full of the atomic bomb [Hiroshima] which is going to revolutionize everything and blow us all to buggery. Not a bad idea.

American forces there could probably be cut by at least one-third if NATO commanders had the power to use nuclear weapons on their own initiative in an emergency.

The aggressor too should know that the preemptive use of nuclear weapons would not insure victory. With modern detection systems and the combat readiness of the Soviet Union's strategic nuclear forces, the United States would not be able to deal a crippling blow to the socialist countries. The aggressor will not be able to evade an all-crushing retaliatory strike

Could anyone in his right mind speak seriously of any limited nuclear war? It should be quite clear that the aggressor's actions will instantly and inevitably trigger a devastating counterstroke by the other side. None but completely irresponsible people could maintain that a nuclear war may be made to follow rules adopted beforehand, with nuclear missiles exploding in a "gentlemanly manner" over strictly designated targets and sparing the population.

If there was a market in mass-produced portable nuclear weapons, we'd market them, too.

In the Cuban missile crisis [1962] we had 5,000 nuclear strategic weapons and the Russians had only 300.... Even though we had a 17 to 1 advantage, we were deterred. Even if only ten percent of their missiles got through, tens of millions of Americans would have died. We could not use our nuclear superiority.