Best 544 quotes in «nuclear quotes» category

I hate people. People make me pro-nuclear.

I have hope for the world, although it is ten minutes before Doomsday. Women all over the world are rising up and infusing the anti-nuclear and peace movements with a vitality and creativity never seen before.

I haven't got anything against films that are about the minutia of relationships or customs, but I love extremes. I love taking a bunch of characters and it usually is a bunch of characters, and you throw something at them that's usually extreme, like a bag of money, or you send them out to explode a nuclear device on the surface of the sun. And those extremes are wonderful for drama.

I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table.

I'm afraid there's a big confusion in the world between nuclear power and nuclear arms.

I made a nuclear reactor when I was 14

I have to say that, you know, for what Secretary [Hillary] Clinton was saying about nuclear with Russia, she's very cavalier in the way she talks about various countries. But Russia has been expanding their - they have a much newer capability than we do. We have not been updating from the new standpoint.

Indeed, the very first resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations - adopted unanimously - called for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

I mean science was blamed for all the horrors of World War I, just as it's blamed today for nuclear weapons and quite rightly.

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

In contrast to my husband, I can pronounce the word nuclear.

India, in particular, is looking to develop nuclear power for domestic, commercial use, and we should work with them. This is a good deal for both countries.

Individual scientists like myself - and many more conspicuous - pointed to the dangers of radioactive fallout over Canada if we were to launch nuclear weapons to intercept incoming bombers.

Impulsiveness is not a trait one would choose for a person with the power to launch the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

I'm worried about the world because of nuclear proliferation.

In 1947 I defended my thesis on nuclear physics, and in 1948 I was included in a group of research scientists whose task was to develop nuclear weapons.

Indeed, the whole human species is endangered, by nuclear weapons or by other means of wholesale destruction which further advances in science are likely to produce.

India can live without nuclear weapons. That's our dream, and it should be the dream of the U.S. also.

In fact, [Donald's Trump] cavalier attitude about nuclear weapons is so deeply troubling.

I never turn on the news over the weekend, short of a nuclear detonation somewhere. I just don't. I don't learn anything from it anymore.

In plain words: now that Britain has told the world that she has the H-Bomb she should announce as early as possible that she has done with it, that she proposes to reject in all circumstances nuclear warfare.

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.

In my humble opinion, in the nuclear world, the true enemy is war itself.

In our age of nuclear and biological weapons and the ever more efficient exploitation of nature, the mix of high technology and an ethos of domination could take us to an evolutionary dead end.

In the future, if nuclear weapons are unleashed there will be no front and no rear.

In the eighteenth century it was often convenient to regard man as a clockwork automaton. In the nineteenth century, with Newtonian physics pretty well assimilated and a lot of work in thermodynamics going on, man was looked on as a heat engine, about 40 per cent efficient. Now in the twentieth century, with nuclear and subatomic physics a going thing, man had become something which absorbs X-rays, gamma rays and neutrons.

Iran has the technology to produce the highly enriched uranium, which is not automatically meaning nuclear weapon.

Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. And for them to be able to provide nuclear technology to non-state actors, that's unacceptable.

Iran - the world's leading sponsor of terrorism - is close to having nuclear weapons.

Iran won't pursue nuclear weapons because 'it's contrary to their faith.'

In the mid-1980s, operating problems took [nuclear] plants off-line so often that, on an annual basis, they operated at only about 55 percent of their rated total generating capacity. Today, as a result of several decades of experience and an intense focus on performance ... nuclear plants in the United States operate at over 90 percent of capacity. That improvement in operating efficiently is so significant in its impact that it can almost be seen as a new source in electric power itself.

Iranian nuclear policy is transparent, and we have opened our facilities to United Nations inspectors. However, we will not abandon the great achievements of Iranian scientists. I too will not suspend uranium enrichment. However, I will attempt to avoid unnecessary tensions. We have a right to enrich uranium.

Iran is isolated on its nuclear program and support for terrorism.

Iran is the greatest threat to stability in the Middle East. Iran remains the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, continues its efforts to develop nuclear weapons and has directly threatened the existence of Israel and the United States.

Iran will for sure have pledged to the international community that it will not develop a nuclear weapon, and now will be subject to an additional protocol, a more vigorous inspection and monitoring regime that lasts in perpetuity.

Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.

Iran's nuclear program . . . there was going to be a time limit . . .

I see nuclear weapons as the ultimate evil, not just evil, but the ultimate evil with the potential to make life unlivable on this planet.

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

I see that the West is beginning to separate the question of nuclear armament from the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Is e=mc2 a sexed equation? Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possible sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged what goes the fastest.

Israel has a sizeable nuclear arsenal and could retaliate if it were attacked.

Israel is the number one rogue state threat to Middle Eastern peace with its nuclear arms and acts of outright aggression towards its peaceful neighbours Syria and Lebanon - and genocidal actions against the marginalised Palestinians of the West Bank - and Gaza in particular.

It has been the policy of the United States, Democrats and Republicans, to do everything we could to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

I started out in nuclear physics. But after I became more sensitized to the environmental and health implications of the nuclear system - I was being trained to be the first women in the fast-breeder reactor in India (and was in it when it first went critical) - I didn't feel comfortable with it. So I went into theoretical physics.

I support an all of the above energy policy, so that's not only just Keystone, that's not only just drilling, that's clean coal, that's safe nuclear.

I think Donald Trump is very, very cautious about nuclear weapons, and he's seriously concerned. And this might be one of the reasons he wants to deal with Putin carefully, because he's aware of how many nuclear weapons Putin has, and that Russian doctrine is much more open about using nuclear weapons than is American doctrine.

I think one country with nuclear weapons is one country too many.

It is the foremost responsibility of the United States, having been the predominant nuclear power, to take the lead in scaling this back and making good on its signed and sealed and ratified obligation in Article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty going back to '68 to eliminate this nuclear arsenal. That's a serious international obligation.

I think the wildest wildlife you can find these days is in Chernobyl, where wolves are running around breeding quite well in the nuclear disaster zones.