Nuclear War Quotes

From a scientific perspective there is some indication that a nuclear war could deplete the earth’s ozone layer or, less likely, could bring on a new Ice Age – but there is no suggestion that either the created order or mankind would be destroyed in the process.

There will never be a nuclear war; there’s too much real estate involved.

I have this very positive view of the world getting better and better. The list of things that could be huge setbacks is not very long: A nuclear war, climate change and epidemics.

today’s children are the first generation to grow up in a world that has the power to destroy itself.

I don’t wanna die in a nuclear war, I want to sail away to a distant shore, and make like an apeman.

It’s like going into a nuclear war with bows and arrows.

Kennedy said that if we had nuclear war we’d kill 300 million people in the first hour. McNamara, who is a good businessman and likes to save, says it would be only 200 million.

People on this planet are currently preparing to blow themselves up in ultimate thermonuclear wars. We are living among beings whose state of mind is destruction.

Mao said he was prepared to have millions of Chinese people perish in a nuclear war as long as China survived… I’m beginning to find it more and more sick that only humans make it into our calculations… Annihilate life on earth, but save the nation… what’s the subject heading? Stupidity or Insanity?

Environmental scientists also show us clearly that from the environmental and ecological points of view that nuclear war is not preventable. The only way to get rid of this danger is to abolish all nuclear weapons

Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers we have not yet thought of.

There is nothing worth having that can be obtained by nuclear war – nothing material or ideological – no tradition that it can defend. It is utterly self-defeating.

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.

Nuclear war is inevitable, says the pessimists; Nuclear war is impossible, says the optimists; Nuclear war is inevitable unless we make it impossible, says the realists.

Much as Cold War nuclear strategists could argue about winning a nuclear war by having more survivors, advocates of a Global Warming War might see the United States, Western Europe, or Russia as better able to ride out climate disruption and manipulation than, say, China or the countries of the Middle East.

“Bobby Tom told me he’s not afraid of the Chargers’ defense.” “Bobby Tom’ll tell you he’s not afraid of nuclear war, so I wouldn’t put too much stock in his opinion.”

The last major childhood disease remains and it’s the worst of them all: nuclear war.

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.

One nuclear war is going to be the last nuclear – the last war, frankly, if it really gets out of hand. And I just don’t think we ought to be prepared to accept that sort of thing.

If by the expression “not practical” you mean “not easy,” you are right. Definitely it is not easy. Yet it should be tried. You may say it is risky trying it. Surely it cannot be more risky than trying a nuclear war.

The human species really could have faced global thermonuclear war. During seventy years of Cold War we grew used to it.

How well a posse policy will fare in a world with 3 billion people below the poverty line and nuclear warheads scattered around a dozen or more regions like melons in a field, is not easy to imagine.

We know that to wage a nuclear war today, for example, would be a form of suicide; or that to pollute the air or the oceans in order to achieve some short-term benefit would be to destroy the very basis for our survival.

It shouldn’t be too much of a surprise that the Internet has evolved into a force strong enough to reflect the greatest hopes and fears of those who use it. After all, it was designed to withstand nuclear war, not just the puny huffs and puffs of politicians and religious fanatics.

The surrealists, and the modern movement in painting as a whole, seemed to offer a key to the strange postwar world with its threat of nuclear war. The dislocations and ambiguities, in cubism and abstract art as well as the surrealists, reminded me of my childhood in Shanghai.

A destruction, an annihilation that only man can provoke, only man can prevent.

Every thinking person fears nuclear war, and every technological state plans for it. Everyone knows it is madness, and every nation has an excuse

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.

I firmly believe that nuclear war is absolutely impossible. I don’t think anyone in the world wants a nuclear war – not even the Russians.

There has been a transition from a nuclear-annihilation scenario to an isolated-terrorist-nuclear-bomb scenario. But we’re still locked into a mind-set that nuclear war would be so overwhelming that any kind of preparedness would be futile.

Not to get political, but it seems like every day I read the paper, and you’re reading about nuclear war and Russians taking over the country and Nazis again. It’s like every once in a while, the world blinks for a second, and it goes, ‘Darkseid is!’ The world has changed, and it’s changed in a ‘Darkseid is’ way.

I remember fear and I remember the potential of nuclear war.

Donald Trump’s candidacy has been a source of anxiety for many reasons, but one stands out: the ability of the president to launch nuclear weapons. When it comes to starting a nuclear war, the president has more freedom than he or she does in, say, ordering the use of torture.

With proper tactics, nuclear war need not be as destructive as it appears.

“Sooner or later disasters such as an asteroid collision or a nuclear war could wipe us all out, But once we spread out into space and establish independent colonies, our future should be safe.”

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.

We will not prematurely or unnecessarily risk the costs of a worldwide nuclear war in which even the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth – but neither shall we shrink from that risk any time it must be faced.

I can’t really worry about nuclear war any more than I can worry about the aliens coming.

The prediction of nuclear winter is drawn not, of course, from any direct experience with the consequences of global nuclear war, but rather from an investigation of the governing physics.

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

In fact, the United States is building up its trident nuclear sub fleet in the Pacific, based at Bangor, Washington to build up its capabilities to wage nuclear war.

We believe in peace in the settlement of all disputes through peaceful means, in the abolition of war, and, more particularly, nuclear war.

This programme to stop nuclear by 2020 is just crazy. If there were a nuclear war, and humanity were wiped out, the Earth would breathe a sigh of relief.

Raul, man, he’s like a Twinkie. He would survive a nuclear war.

The leaders of the world face no greater task than that of avoiding nuclear war. While preserving the cause of freedom, we must seek abolition of war through programs of general and complete disarmament. The Test-Ban Treaty of 1963 represents a significant beginning in this immense undertaking.

As a planet, we are at risk of destruction (for example, gradually by the warming of the planet; or rapidly, by nuclear war or a pathogen that gets out of control). And these threats require us to work together, and not just to announce our diversity.

The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us.

Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers. I think the human race has no future if it doesn’t go into space. I therefore want to encourage public interest in space.

In nuclear war all men are cremated equal.

We’re talking about nuclear war with North Korea. We’re talking about Russia. Does it feel like the world has shifted? Are we all just in Donald Trump’s reality show now?

This whole notion that the robot has to declare nuclear war is one part of the discussion, but it may not be reality. Reality is, maybe it can empathize to a far greater degree than we can and experience a way wider range of emotions. So, why not have a robot that can do that?

As difficult as it is to eliminate the risk of nuclear warfare, it requires fewer changes to the global economy than does averting or reversing climate change.

If there was a war, a big war, a major war on the planet, it would be a nuclear war, and it would destroy all life, human and subhuman, on planet earth.

When I was a kid, I had two nightmares: one was nuclear war, and the other was that my parents would get a divorce; and when I was twenty, they split up, and I just felt like I needed to confront all those things that scared me as a kid – entering young adulthood and trying to have relationships.

We must eliminate all nuclear weapons in order to eliminate the grave risk they pose to our world. This will require persistent efforts by all countries and peoples. A nuclear war would affect everyone, and all have a stake in preventing this nightmare.

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

The first thing that matters: I am a child of the eighties. I grew up in a neon wonderland of talking horses, compassionate bears, hair that didn’t move in a stiff wind, and the constant threat of nuclear war.

Every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable .. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us.

[Nuclear war]… may not be desirable.

The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.

I suspect the soviets never did want to use those bombs. The most Stalinist of Soviet hard-liners – Stalin, for example – must have realized a nuclear war would be a hard thing to clean up after.

Mankind needs peace more than ever, for our entire planet, threatened by nuclear war, is in danger of total destruction. A destruction only man can provoke, only man can prevent.

Violent ground-acquisition games such as football are in fact a crypto-fascist metaphor for nuclear war.

If Obama commits thermonuclear war, I won’t have to worry about November and neither will you.

Without perestroika, the cold war simply would not have ended. But the world could not continue developing as it had, with the stark menace of nuclear war ever present.

One of the dangers [that Donald Trump poses, due to the augmented risk of nuclear war] is unquestionable. Of the two existential threats – the threats to the termination of the species basically and most other species – one of them, climate change, on that I think there’s no basis for discussion.

I think architectural appreciation would be a minor occupation after a nuclear war. People would just be happy to have something to eat.

I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.

The United States government first learned of the diversion of the W-88 nuclear warhead design in late 1995.

Nuclear war can ruin your whole compile.

Most music culture these days runs on systems and networks devised to deal with the aftermath of thermonuclear war. Music culture has a habit of using these moods and machines in creative, unintended ways.

If you asked me to name the three scariest threats facing the human race, I would give the same answer that most people would: nuclear war, global warming and Windows.

We still live with this unbelievable threat over our heads of nuclear war. I mean, are we stupid? Do we think that the nuclear threat has gone, that the nuclear destruction of the planet is not imminent? It’s a delusion to think it’s gone away.

A nuclear war does not defend a country and it does not defend a system. I’ve put it the same way many times; not even the most accomplished ideologue will be able to tell the difference between the ashes of capitalism and the ashes of communism.

The U.S. had about 10,000 nuclear warheads. It is estimated that the U.S. is heading towards having 6,000 nuclear warheads in the year 2012.

We don’t want to start a nuclear war unless we really have to, now do we Jack?

Nuclear war is such an emotional subject that many people see the weapons themselves as the common enemy of humanity.

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.

Growing up during the Cold War, I remember the seemingly imminent threat of nuclear war. In primary school we were taught to ‘duck-and-cover’ for protection. But even as children hiding under wooden desks, we recognized the inadequacies of this strategy.

Look at what President Kennedy managed to achieve during the Cuban missile crisis. If Bush had been president in 1962, do you think he would have avoided a nuclear war?

If there is anything more frightening than the threat of global nuclear war, it is the certainty that humans not only stand on the verge of producing new life forms but may soon be able to tinker with them as if they were vintage convertibles or bonsai trees.

The survivors (of a nuclear war) would envy the dead.

Both we and the Soviets face the common threat of nuclear destruction and there is no likelihood that either capitalism or communism will survive a nuclear war.

I would say the thing you can still see in Black Mirror is that I was probably traumatized by the specter of nuclear war. I was born in 1971, and in the ’80s I came to understand that I was inevitably going to be frazzled to death in the nuclear apocalypse.

In many places around the world, all over the U.S. and Europe there are active nuclear power plants. And for many years during the Cold War the threat of nuclear war was a permanent fear. There’s always the concern that human kind is biting off more than they can chew in harnessing nuclear power.

There is no such thing as a survivable or local nuclear war.

There are two problems for our species’ survival – nuclear war and environmental catastrophe – and we’re hurtling towards them. Knowingly.

There are people on the left who say, Look, we can’t let these atrocities go on, so let’s enter the war and get rid of Bashar Assad. The problem with that is you get into a nuclear war with Russia. And Syria gets wiped out along with everything else. So, it’s fine to say, OK, let’s stop the crimes, but how exactly?

The entire world will be in nuclear war, and only the Swiss will be going, ‘what’s that noise?’

Nuclear war would mean abolition of most comforts, and disruption of normal routines, for children and adults alike.

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.

Even with the best intentions, you can have a nuclear war, a nuclear holocaust, through miscalculation, through accidents.

Some programs have been theatrical masterpieces, but all we’re seeing is the negative side of nuclear war.

[Donald Trump] even said, well, you know, if there were nuclear war in East Asia, well, you know, that’s fine have a good time, folks.

In nuclear war, all men are cremated equal.

As long as the two nuclear superpowers maintain arsenals in the tens of thousands of nuclear warheads, there is no way they can with any consistency urge that other nations not be allowed to acquire theses weapons.

Nixon did have a secret plan, and I knew that it involved making threats of nuclear war to North Vietnam.

Like any good spy novel, the Cox Report alleges that Chinese spies penetrated four U.S. weapons research labs and stole important information on seven nuclear warhead designs.

My feelings of revulsion and foreboding about nuclear weapons had not changed an iota since 1945, and they have never left me. Since I was 14, the overriding objective of my life has been to prevent the occurrence of nuclear war.

Pro football is like nuclear warfare. There are no winners, only survivors.

If nuclear warfare is believed to be somewhat controlled, then climate change is now the greatest threat.

It is madness for any country to build its policy with an eye to nuclear war.

The AEC scientists were so narrowly focused on arming the United States for nuclear war that they failed to perceive facts – even widely known ones – that were outside their limited field of vision.

…nuclear threats and nuclear weapons are the last argument of weak, stressed and irresponsible politicians. People must act very quicky to stop the movement to nuclear war.

It should make people nervous when non-transparent regimes, that have announced that they’ve got nuclear warheads, fire missiles. This is not the way you conduct business in the world. This is not the way that peaceful nations conduct their affairs.

There is nothing worth having that can he obtained by nuclear war – nothing material or ideological – no tradition that it can defend. It is utterly self-defeating.

The consensus is that climate change ranks along with nuclear warfare as the top two risks facing human civilization.

I not only saw the possibility of nuclear war, I feared it very much. If they started a military conflagration, it would automatically lead to nuclear warfare.

No one in a novel by Virginia Woolf ever filled up the petrol tank of her car. No one in Hemingway’s postwar novels ever worried about the effects of prolonged exposure to the threat of nuclear war.

But if Saddam had been in a position credibly to threaten America or any of its allies – or the coalition’s forces – with attack by missiles with nuclear warheads, would we have gone to the Gulf at all?

Firing off 1,000 or 500 or 2,000 nuclear warheads on a few minutes’ consideration has always struck me as an absurd way to go to war.

The only good thing about nuclear war is that it is the single most egalitarian idea that man has ever had. On the day of reckoning, you will not be asked to present your credentials. The devastation will be indiscriminate.

You don’t have any communication between the Israelis and the Iranians. You have all sorts of local triggers for conflict. Having countries act on a hair trigger – where they can’t afford to be second to strike – the potential for a miscalculation or a nuclear war through inadvertence is simply too high.

Direct aggression against Cuba would mean nuclear war. The Americans speak about such aggression as if they did not know or did not want to accept this fact. I have no doubt they would lose such a war.

I think if journalists were responsible for international policy we’d have a nuclear war every week.