Example collocations logo

Arsenal in sentence

278 examples of Arsenal in a sentence

And, according to Siegfried Hecker, the former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the US, North Korea will have 20 warheads in its nuclear arsenal by 2016; it also plans to move rapidly to develop its capacity to miniaturize nuclear weapons.
There are some who would urge that we all remain calm (good advice in most circumstances) and somehow take comfort in the fact that North Korea still faces many serious technical hurdles before it can successfully add nuclear weapons to its considerable conventional arsenal.
Although there had been several unofficial statements by Kim Jong-Il’s regime admitting that North Korea possessions nuclear arsenal, the announcement was the first official confirmation.
If North Korea is, indeed, continuing to develop not only its nuclear arsenal, but also various types of ballistic missiles, in defiance of international commitments, it is truly a rogue state.
Indeed, as the country’s civilian political institutions corrode, its nuclear arsenal, ominously, is becoming increasingly unsafe.
The regime’s request to delay the elimination of its chemical-weapons arsenal has created a new disagreement, with Russia, China, and Iran calling for a flexible timetable, while the US and the European Union continue to insist on the June deadline.
But such practices are still being applied to a lesser degree, and they can be pulled out of the arsenal whenever political or social conditions dictate.
While North Korea’s nuclear arsenal is much smaller, persistent doubts about the regime’s sustainability make it a matter of grave concern.
According to media reports, it has devised a strategy for deploying Special Forces to neutralize Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal in the event that its authorities lose control.
But even if it does not fail, the nexus between terrorist groups and Pakistan’s powerful military raises the specter of nuclear terrorism – a menace so large that the United States has prepared a contingency plan to take out the country’s fast-growing nuclear arsenal should the need arise.
France is keen to maintain its independent arms industry, and to keep open its naval arsenal, based in Saint-Nazaire on the West coast.
For all of their infuriating brinkmanship, it is reasonable to assume that North Korea’s leaders are not bent on national suicide, as any attempted use of their still very modest nuclear arsenal would certainly entail.
What makes things politically difficult for Obama is the widespread perception that Iran is hell-bent on actually acquiring a physical nuclear arsenal; that all else is dissimulation; and that negotiations can at best buy time.
Heavier weapons remain in the diplomatic arsenal to deter Putin from trying to carve off further sections of Ukraine; in the meantime, markets are imposing additional economic costs on all Russians.
Fortunately, a growing arsenal of solutions is available through local innovations that are increasingly well adapted to Africa’s unique needs.
Every dollar invested in bolstering a country’s nuclear arsenal is a diversion of resources from its schools, hospitals, and other social services, and a theft from the millions around the globe who go hungry or are denied access to basic medicines.
My own country, South Africa, gave up its nuclear arsenal in the 1990’s, realizing it was better off without these weapons.
Some charge the Obama administration itself with sending mixed signals or worse: The US, they note, has modernized its own nuclear arsenal, developed new ballistic-missile defense and conventional weapons systems, and been too willing to accommodate its European and Northeast Asian allies’ nervousness about limiting the nuclear dimension of the extended deterrence umbrella under which they shelter.
Who is really in charge of its nuclear arsenal?
But the most serious threat to Russia’s global status is the coming obsolescence of its nuclear arsenal.
In reaching out to the South, Kim wants to demonstrate that the North can live peacefully with its neighbors, even as it maintains a nuclear arsenal.
The current charade of international control over Assad’s chemical arsenal would be amusing if it were not so blatantly perfidious.
Just a few weeks ago, it was feared that Syria’s crumbling regime might transfer part of its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction to Hezbollah, or that some of that arsenal might fall into jihadis’ hands.
So the step taken by Presidents Obama and Medvedev is essential, and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, seeking big cuts in Britain’s nuclear arsenal, has publicly endorsed it.
The same applies to a European effort to rebuild relations with Iran, or a joint initiative to invest in helping Russia to destroy its huge arsenal of antiquated nuclear and chemical munitions so as to avoid having these fall into the wrong hands.
The member states’ common arsenal of interventionist tools – deposit guarantees, re-capitalization of banks, guarantees for inter-bank loans, and purchases of toxic assets – seemed to give credence to the notion of European unity.
Moreover, Russia is not interested in reducing this part of its nuclear arsenal significantly.
Hezbollah is preparing intensively for such scenarios, building defenses, digging tunnels, and assembling a powerful missile arsenal.
Even without adding energy exports to its diplomatic arsenal, Russia may take steps to mitigate that risk, by encouraging Iran to delay reaching a final nuclear agreement with the international community.
Russia would interpret German steps toward a nuclear arsenal as a direct threat to its own national security and would likely adopt military countermeasures.
BackNext