We've gotten a long way on missile defense. We know how to do it. We know how to take down incoming warheads, but we need to do a lot more work in order to be - to deploy a system that'll defend the United States against those kinds of limited strikes that might be possible by a nuclear armed North Korea or Iran.
In the late 1950s a major topic under discussion was whether Canada should acquire nuclear weapons.
The consequence of a world full of nuclear powers to me is so incomprehensible in terms of the dangers that that implies.
At the point when continuity was interrupted by the first nuclear explosion, it would have been too easy to recover the formal sediment which linked us with an age of poetic decorum, of a preoccupation with poetic sounds.
Nobody wants any country to have nuclear weapons.
The issues and challenges surrounding nuclear non-proliferation are continuously evolving. They've changed dramatically at several junctures in recent memory.
Must we wait for selection to solve the problems of overpopulation, exhaustion of resources, pollution of the environment and a nuclear holocaust, or can we take explicit steps to make our future more secure? In the latter case, must we not transcend selection?
There is no direct evidence that nuclear weapons prevented a world war. Conversely, it is known that they nearly caused one.
The revival of the Right is as extraordinary as it would be if the public had demanded dozens of new nuclear plants in the days after the Three Mile Island disaster; if we had reacted to Watergate by making Richard Nixon a national hero.
Nuclear energy, in terms of an overall safety record, is better than other energy.
When the START 2 treaty has been implemented - and remember it has not yet been ratified - we will be left with some 15,000 nuclear warheads, active and in reserve. Fifteen thousand weapons with an average yield of 20 Hiroshima bombs.
Barack Obama has injected fresh momentum into efforts - stalled for a decade - to bring about nuclear disarmament.
What I am going to write is the last of what I have to say. I will say that 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.
The whole nuclear thing is a terrible mess and it's hard for me to understand why it is that we, the United States, seem to be the only ones that are really particularly concerned about it and prepared to do something.
Everybody after Fukushima had to reassess the safety of nuclear. When I set out to design a reactor, I knew it had to be passive and intrinsically safe.
Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war that we know about peace, more about killing that we know about living.
Trump's opinions on the Iraq War have been as erratic as his opinions on other foreign policy matters - such as his careless position to think more countries should acquire nuclear weapons.
We have got thousands of nuclear weapons in order to achieve deterrence.
We have never succeeded in slowing down our nuclear fusion reactors.
This is the reality of nuclear weapons: they may trigger a world war; a war which, unlike previous ones, destroys all of civilization.
And the fact of the matter is there were thousands of people that went through those training camps in Afghanistan. We know they are seeking deadlier weapons - chemical, biological and nuclear weapons if they can get it.
Nuclear weapons are intrinsically neither moral nor immoral, though they are more prone to immoral use than most weapons.
We were fortunate to have the Russians as our childhood enemies. We practiced hiding under our desks in case they had the temerity to drop a nuclear weapon.
Despite claims by some to the contrary, we have heard numerous times in hearings and briefings by experts that existing technologies do not fully or effectively detect nuclear material.
The days are gone forever when our enemies could blackmail us with nuclear bombs.
If we have isolated individuals able to inflict enormous harm, imagine what a single lunatic can do with a nuclear weapon. I think the whole base of civil society is at risk.
I was 11 when I was molested. It was like a nuclear explosion going off in my life, destroying everything.
All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk.
In the 1990s, we were certain that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear arsenal. In fact, his factories could barely make soap.
All mankind is now learning that these nuclear weapons can only serve to destroy, never become beneficial.
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.
Nuclear physics is interesting but it is unlikely to help society.
We continue to have nuclear weapons relied on as a weapon of choice. If that policy were to continue, we continue to have countries who are in a security bind, if you like, or perceive themselves to be in security bind to look for acquisition of nuclear weapons.
In terms of weapons, the best disarmament tool so far is nuclear energy. We have been taking down the Russian warheads, turning it into electricity. 10 percent of American electricity comes from decommissioned warheads.
It is the earnest hope of our people that the world may see the day when all nuclear weapons are abolished.
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.