Before the revolution of 1979, Western countries sold nuclear technology to Iran. Today we are face to face with a totalitarian regime that supports terrorism and promotes a radical vision of Islam. Access to the nuclear weapons would enable this regime to fortify its position in the region and to establish control on both banks of the Persian Gulf, as well as over the flow of oil. In this way the regime would be able to achieve what the Soviet Union never succeeded in accomplishing: controlling of the world economy. The nuclear weapons would guarantee the survival of the regime.

With regard to the Iranians, we know that by not talking to Iran the U.S. did not improve the situation. Today Iran is a nuclear power - it doesn't have nuclear weapons yet, but in 2001 it was not yet able to convert uranium or uranium gas, it didn't have a single centrifuge. Now it's stockpiling highly enriched uranium. So the current approach of not talking hasn't worked. There’s no guarantee that if you talk you'll succeed, but if you don’t talk you will fail.

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.

Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, `We're going to wipe you off the planet."

Your comments on the Cuban crisis are, to me, utterly amazing. You say that the way the solution was arrived at was that 'the Russians discontinued their suicidal policy; and President Kennedy by his resolution and farsightedness saved the world'. This seems to me a complete reversal of the truth. Russia and America had policies leading directly to nuclear war. Khrushchev, when he saw the danger, abandoned his policy. Kennedy did not. It was Khrushchev who allowed the human race to continue, not Kennedy.

“First off, what’s wrong with Iran acquiring nuclear devices. Truthfully, look at it. We’ve got ‘em. China’s got ‘em. India’s got ‘em. Anybody’s who’s afraid of us has got them." -- On Iran’s Nuclear Program. Interview.

We have more nuclear warheads than the Russians, and I consider this to be the most important measure of relative strength. In addition, as Dr. Kissinger stressed many years ago, at the present level of strategic armaments superiority in numbers or megatons has no meaning.

Fifty years ago, the Cuban missile crisis brought the world to the brink of nuclear disaster. During the standoff, US President John F. Kennedy thought the chance of escalation to war was "between 1 in 3 and even," and what we have learned in later decades has done nothing to lengthen those odds. We now know, for example, that in addition to nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, the Soviet Union had deployed 100 tactical nuclear weapons to Cuba, and the local Soviet commander there could have launched these weapons without additional codes or commands from Moscow. The US air strike and invasion that were scheduled for the third week of the confrontation would likely have triggered a nuclear response against American ships and troops, and perhaps even Miami. The resulting war might have led to the deaths of 100 million Americans and over 100 million Russians.

Why would someone who spent so many years negotiating with the Soviet Union about the size of our nuclear arsenal now say we no longer need it? I know that the simplest and most direct answer to the problem of nuclear weapons has always been their complete elimination. My walk in the woods in 1982 with the Soviet arms negotiator Yuli Kvitsinsky at least addressed this possibility on a bilateral basis. Destruction of the arms did not prove feasible then, but there is no good reason why it should not be carried out now. … It is the presence of nuclear weapons that threatens our existence.

KAMALA HARRIS: …If Donald Trump were president, Putin would be sitting in Kyiv right now….
Putin would be sitting in Moscow and he wouldn't have lost 300,000 men and women. But he would have been sitting in Moscow… But eventually, you know, he's got a thing that other people don't have. He's got nuclear weapons. They don't ever talk about that. He's got nuclear weapons. Nobody ever thinks about that. And eventually uh maybe he'll use them. Maybe he hasn't been that threatening. But he does have that. Something we don't even like to talk about.

I remember President Kennedy once stated... that the United States had the nuclear missile capacity to wipe out the Soviet Union two times over, while the Soviet Union had enough atomic weapons to wipe out the United States only once... When journalists asked me to comment... I said jokingly, "Yes, I know what Kennedy claims, and he's quite right. But I'm not complaining... We're satisfied to be able to finish off the United States first time round. Once is quite enough. What good does it do to annihilate a country twice? We're not a bloodthirsty people."

If John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan could negotiate with the Soviet Union, then surely a strong and confident America can negotiate with less powerful adversaries today.

Didn’t JFK give Khrushchev a written promise not to invade Cuba, not to permit an invasion from American territory — or from any other place in the Western Hemisphere? Written, by God! So now, a hostile European power, Soviet Russia, totally against your Monroe Doctrine, is openly established ninety miles off your coast, the borders of which are guaranteed in writing by your own President and ratified by your own Congress. The Big K pulled off a colossal coup never duplicated in your whole history. And all for nothing!

I'd like to say just a couple of other things, though, that relate, some directly, to you and to women who look to you for leadership which are kind of tied in with the other responsibilities that I have as President. I spent this afternoon receiving reports from Secretary of State Cy Vance on his discussions with the Soviet leaders concerning the control, the strict limitation, and the drastic reduction in nuclear weapons. This is a subject that hasn't been raised in a forceful way before. Previously, we have talked and the Soviets have talked about ultimate limits well above where we presently have stood. Now we are talking about an end to the development, the design, the deployment of new weapons systems; a drastic reduction in intercontinental ballistics missiles we have now; a comprehensive test ban, both military weapon testing and peaceful nuclear device testing; a demilitarization of the Indian Ocean; a strict limitation on the proliferation of nuclear weapon capability to other countries; a strict limitation and reduction in conventional weapon capability; a mutual effort on the part of us, the Soviet Union, France, Germany on sales of conventional weapons to other nations. We're trying to do all these things. We need your help. And they are crucial to every person and, particularly, to a group as well organized and as forceful as you are. We're also hopeful that in the future we can have success in our effort to identify abuses and to correct the abuses and to set a new standard in the preservation of human rights throughout the world. I don't intend to yield on this position, because I think it represents what our Nation is and what the world ought to be. Your forceful voices in constantly espousing the cause of human rights would help me a great deal and help the Members of Congress and help other leaders of our Nation to establish a corps of moral commitment that can restore the legitimate pride in our country, to the extent that is has been diminished, and reestablish the United States of America as the rallying point for human rights around the world. We've not enjoyed that position in recent years. But I'm determined that once again, we'll be a beacon light for those who believe in human rights all over the globe. And you can help me with it if you will.