“Big Dams are to a nation's 'development' what nuclear bombs are to its military arsenal. They're both weapons of mass destruction. They're both weapons governments use to control their own people. Both twentieth-century emblems that mark a point in time when human intelligence has outstripped its own instinct for survival. They're both malignant indications of a civilization turning upon itself. They represent the severing of the link, not just the link -- the understanding-- between human beings and the planet they live on. They scramble the intelligence that connects eggs to hens, milk to cows, food to forests, water to rivers, air to life, and the earth to human existence.”

TVP Interview http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/g8/interview5.html, Poland, <br class="br">2000s, 2003

A Prescription for Hope (1985)
Context: Combatting the nuclear threat has been our exclusive preoccupation, since we are dedicated to the proposition that to insure the conditions of life, we must prevent the conditions of death. Ultimately, we believe people must come to terms with the fact that the struggle is not between different national destinies, between opposing ideologies, but rather between catastrophe and survival. All nations share a linked destiny; nuclear weapons are their shared enemy.

Source: What is Anthropology? (2nd ed., 2017), Ch. 1 : Why Anthropology?

Source: Dexter By Design

1980s, First term of office (1981–1985), Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation (1983)

From Her Books, I Have Chosen To Stay And Fight, NATIONALISM

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) <br class="br">1990s <br class="br">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&#x27;s not the same: they&#x27;re too powerful, and at some point you just can&#x27;t use any more, it&#x27;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&#x27;t stand up and say, &quot;I&#x27;m willing to have less than the Soviet Union,&quot; 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&#x27;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&#x27;ll be a totally different country. You don&#x27;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&#x27;t need thousands of weapons to demobilize a country.

Part V, The Merchant Princes, section 13
The Foundation series (1951–1993), Foundation (1951)

Source: The Dervish House (2010), Ch. 5, §1 (p. 158)