
Address to the United Nations General Assembly https://archive.is/hZjh9#selection-723.6-723.114 (1 October 2013).
2010s, 2013
Nobel Prize lecture (2005)
Address to the United Nations General Assembly https://archive.is/hZjh9#selection-723.6-723.114 (1 October 2013).
2010s, 2013
“… the use of nuclear weapons is Iran's right.”
CNN mistranslation of phrase in 14 January 2006 news conference
correct translation: "Iran has the right to nuclear energy."
"CNN allowed to resume work in Iran after apology" http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5347--, Reuters, 17 January 2006
Misattributed
Nobel lecture (2005)
Context: As long as some of us choose to rely on nuclear weapons, we continue to risk that these same weapons will become increasingly attractive to others.
I have no doubt that, if we hope to escape self-destruction, then nuclear weapons should have no place in our collective conscience, and no role in our security.
To that end, we must ensure — absolutely — that no more countries acquire these deadly weapons.
We must see to it that nuclear-weapon states take concrete steps towards nuclear disarmament.
And we must put in place a security system that does not rely on nuclear deterrence.
Interview (18 December 1997) http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-21/turner1.html for CNN : Cold War. Episode 21 : Spies (14 March 1999)
1990s
Context: America and Russia have excessive numbers of nuclear weapons today because we treated nuclear weapons, at the end of World War II, like they were just bigger conventional weapons. If you have tanks, and the other side has more than you, you may be in trouble — or airplanes or ships or whatever. With nuclear weapons, it's not the same: they're too powerful, and at some point you just can't use any more, it's just not meaningful. But what happened was, we had the lead of course, because we invented them. The Russians tried to catch up with us; we tried to stay ahead of the Russians; they tried to catch up with us, and we just had a never-ending race upward. By the mid-Sixties, we realized this, but because of the Cold War mentality, politicians couldn't stand up and say, "I'm willing to have less than the Soviet Union," and so the race continued, but we tried to mitigate it by instituting an arms control process, which at first tried to cap and then later to reduce these numbers. … there's just no way you can actually use them; they become so destructive. I estimate that a couple of hundred nuclear weapons, not just on the center of cities, but on economic positions in the country, will drive a country to the point it will never recover, it will never be the same again. It will survive, but it'll be a totally different country. You don't need thousands to do that. There are only a few hundred cities of any size in even Russia or the United States, like 200, and you just don't need thousands of weapons to demobilize a country.
Comments (via satellite) at the Seventh Annual Herzliya Conference in Israel. http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1728&CategoryID=223
Jeremy Corbyn row after 'I'd not fire nuclear weapons' comment https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34399565, BBC News, 30 September 2015
2010s, 2015
The Tribune (28 March 1986).
1980s
Source: Isaac Herzog (2021) cited in " Iran must be stopped from obtaining a nuclear bomb, with or without deal - Herzog https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-689474" on The Jerusalem Post, 22 December 2021.
The London Standard (30 September 1986).
1980s