A Quote by David Steel

Liberals have always opposed the concept of an independent nuclear deterrent. — © David Steel
Liberals have always opposed the concept of an independent nuclear deterrent.
Our nuclear weapons are meant purely as a deterrent against nuclear adventure by an adversary.
Iran has been calling for it for years, and the Arab countries support it. Everyone except the United States and Israel support it. The U.S. won't allow it because it means inspecting Israel's nuclear weapons. The U.S. has continued to block it, and in fact blocked it again just a couple of days ago; it just wasn't widely reported. Iran's nuclear program, as U.S. intelligence points out, is deterrent, and the bottom line is that the U.S. and Israel don't want Iran to have a deterrent.
Having worked for him in the nuclear weapons policy business, I can tell you that President Reagan was committed to assuring the effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent.
We do not wish to have nuclear weapons on New Zealand soil or in our harbors. We do not ask, we do not expect, the United States to come to New Zealand's assistance with nuclear weapons or to present American nuclear capability as a deterrent to an attacker.
A nuclear program has arguably worked as a deterrent for North Korea and other states - would Moammar Gadhafi have been deposed and summarily killed if Libya had had nuclear weapons? Iranians might not think so.
The whole idea of a nuclear system is to have a deterrent where we decide if we're going to use it.
If world is suspicious that Israel may detonate nuclear bomb and if the suspicion is a deterrent - that's good enough.
Look, Israel doesn't intend to introduce nuclear weapons, but if people are afraid that we have them, why not? It's a deterrent.
The opposition has always opposed the Universal Child Care Benefit, from the time the Liberals said parents would just spend it on beer and popcorn.
The thing that makes countries want to pursue some kind of nuclear deterrent is precisely the fact that they feel threatened.
If there's the right condition, I always want to express the concept or ideas in a very independent way.
India, being a sovereign state, has the right to decide what kind of nuclear deterrent New Delhi needs in respect of international security perception.
I have ever been opposed to banks, - opposed to internal improvements by the general government, - opposed to distribution of public lands among the states, - opposed to taking the power from the hands of the people, - opposed to special monopolies, - opposed to a protective tariff, - opposed to a latitudinal construction of the constitution, - opposed to slavery agitation and disunion. This is my democracy. Point to a single act of my public career not in keeping with these principles.
I do want to be very clear: I see our nuclear deterrent as absolutely core insurance for our national security.
What is the only provocation that could bring about the use of nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons. What is the priority target for nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons. What is the only established defense against nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons. How do we prevent the use of nuclear weapons? By threatening to use nuclear weapons. And we can't get rid of nuclear weapons, because of nuclear weapons. The intransigence, it seems, is a function of the weapons themselves.
Israel claims it needs nuclear weapons as a deterrent against any threat to its existence. The Arab world in return feels that this is an imbalanced system; there is a sense of humiliation and impotence.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!