John Abizaid Quotes

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.

If we are to assume that North Korea becomes a nuclear-power state, of course the danger of having an all-out nuclear war, that possibility is very slim.

Above all else, we need a reaffirmation of political commitment at the highest levels to reducing the dangers that arise both from existing nuclear weapons and from further proliferation.

Am I not correct in saying that Iran has never voiced that they are developing a nuclear weapon, nor do they have any intention of using a nuclear weapon against the United States? That's never actually been voiced. I don't know where that has come from, but it hasn't been from Iran.

The world should be very clear about making sure that Iran does not get nuclear weapons, period.

Everyone knows that Israel has nuclear weapons, but no one is talking about it. The world doesn't want nuclear weapons - not in Israel, not in the Middle East and not anywhere in the world.

Barack Obama has injected fresh momentum into efforts - stalled for a decade - to bring about nuclear disarmament.

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

I still believe that any country understands that if they use nuclear weapons, they will be wiped out of existence. They could be irrational in many ways, but I don't think they're irrational to the point that they're ready to annihilate their own country.

We will use nuclear weapons whenever it serves our vital interests.

There's no way you can possibly intellectually justify, 'Well, it's okay for the Western Judeo-Christian countries to have nuclear weapons, but not for a country like Iran.' That logic goes nowhere fast.

The greatest threat that the world faces is a nuclear Iran. A nuclear North Korea is already troubling enough.

Under both international and domestic law, the United States is authorized to have nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons offer us nothing but a balance of terror, and a balance of terror is still terror.

I think the Iranians are clearly determined to have a nuclear program. And we have to assume that with a nuclear program they have the capability and the will to create a nuclear weapon.

We still live in a world where if you have nuclear weapons, you are buying power; you are buying insurance against attack.

The fundamental premise is that neither the United States or the international community is going to allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.

The North Koreas of the world are trying very hard to acquire the material they need to acquire nuclear weapons, as is the case with Iran.

The real abhorrent consequence of the invention of atomic bombs is the fact that we still have them and they're spreading.

The catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons require that it be treated as a top priority. Disarmament will work better than any alternative in reducing the risk of use.

It is not viable for one country to demand a right to increase and upgrade its nuclear weapons capabilities while asking others to eliminate theirs.

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

It's very certain that North Korea is developing nuclear weapons for offensive purposes. They don't need nuclear weapons to defend their own country.

I want to move to a world of no nuclear weapons but I want to do that through multilateral disarmament so that we all disarm together.

If you go on with this nuclear arms race, all you are going to do is make the rubble bounce.