We're dealing with them [Iran] directly and maybe a [Nuclear] deal is going to be made. Doing a deal would be preferable to doing the obvious. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, and if the talks aren't successful, I think it's going to be a very bad day for Iran.

War implies a contest; when you get to the point that contest is no longer involved and the outlook comes close to destruction of the enemy and suicide for ourselves-an outlook that neither side can ignore - then arguments as to the exact amount of available strength as compared to somebody else's are no longer the vital issues.

I would be prepared to submit to the Congress of the United States... any such plan that would, first, encourage world-wide investigation into the most effective peacetime uses of fissionable material, and... second, begin to diminish the potential destructive power of the world's atomic stockpiles; third, allow all peoples of all nations to see that, in this enlightened age, the great Powers of the earth... are interested in human aspirations first rather than in building up the armaments of war; fourth, open up a new channel for peaceful discussion.

The United States would seek more than the mere reduction or elimination of atomic materials for military purposes. It is not enough to take this weapon out of the hands of the soldiers. It must be put into the hands of those who will know how to strip its military casing and adapt it to the arts of peace.

When we get to the point, as we one day will, that both sides know that in any outbreak of general hostilities, regardless of the element of surprise, destruction will be both reciprocal and complete, possibly we will have sense enough to meet at the conference table with the understanding that the era of armaments has ended and the human race must conform its actions to this truth or die.

Science seems ready to confer upon us, as its final gift, the power to erase human life from this planet.