Example collocations logo

Disarmament in sentence

291 examples of Disarmament in a sentence

Even if all of the world’s nuclear-weapon states embrace the vision of a world free of the threat of nuclear conflict, nuclear weapons will remain with us for two decades at least, and even that would require the most favorable conditions for disarmament.
Nuclear disarmament is therefore still urgently needed, and prominent politicians in the US and Germany have produced the US-led Global Zero initiative and createdthe International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (ICNND), sponsored by Australia and Japan and co-chaired by former Foreign Ministers Yoriko Kawaguchi and Gareth Evans.
But the road to global nuclear disarmament will be long and bumpy.
But the withdrawal of American nuclear weapons from Europe is by no means the first step towards nuclear disarmament.
But the time has now come to join Presidents Obama and Medvedev in bringing about disarmament.
Santos probably wanted to have the talks viewed as a relatively unconditional surrender and disarmament by the “narco-guerrillas.”
Critics present nuclear disarmament as unrealistic at best, and a risky utopian dream at worst.
By failing to propose a compelling plan for nuclear disarmament, the US, Russia, and the remaining nuclear powers are promoting through inaction a future in which nuclear weapons will inevitably be used.
Barring preemptive war (which has proven counterproductive) or effective sanctions (which have thus far proven insufficient), only sincere steps toward nuclear disarmament can furnish the mutual security needed to forge tough compromises on arms control and nonproliferation matters.
But prospects for progress on arms control and nonproliferation are darkening in the absence of a credible push for nuclear disarmament.
I learned during those two long days in Reykjavik that disarmament talks could be as constructive as they are arduous.
The nuclear powers should adhere to the requirements of the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty and resume “good faith” negotiations for disarmament.
Only a serious program of universal nuclear disarmament can provide the reassurance and the credibility needed to build a global consensus that nuclear deterrence is a dead doctrine.
Conditions were far from favorable for a disarmament deal in 1986.
What seem to be lacking today are leaders with the boldness and vision to build the trust needed to reintroduce nuclear disarmament as the centerpiece of a peaceful global order.
If, as seems likely, economic troubles continue, the US, Russia, and other nuclear powers should seize the moment to launch multilateral arms reductions through new or existing channels such as the UN Conference on Disarmament.
In fact, Hezbollah is now not only militarily stronger than ever – Security Council Resolution 1701, which called for its disarmament, has proven to be an utter failure – but also more politically robust than before the war.
Since 2012, when the humanitarian impact initiative was conceived, most countries have stepped up to support it, owing to their anxiety and frustration at the snail-like pace of disarmament.
As with the politics pursued in the Obama administration’s 16 months of office – dialogue, international commitment, nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament – the document’s strength lies in the position that it takes.
Nonetheless, New START marks a step in the direction of disarmament.
To succeed, the transition to peace requires demobilization, disarmament and reintegration of former combatants, as well as reconstruction and rehabilitation of services and infrastructure.
Likewise, little progress toward nuclear disarmament has been made, in disregard of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
And one could multiply the subjects of possible tensions, from nuclear disarmament – too much for the French, too little for many others – to the best ways to deal with Iran, Russia, and China.
The price Hamas would have to pay is complete disarmament and demilitarization of Gaza under international supervision, with Abbas’s Palestinian Authority controlling the border crossings into Israel and Egypt.
On August 10, the French delegate to the Geneva Disarmament Conference, where the treaty is being negotiated, declared that his government will demand a ban of "all nuclear weapons tests and all other types of nuclear explosions".
But there is a general feeling that implementation has fallen short of expectations, particularly with regard to nuclear disarmament.
The NPT regime stands on three pillars: non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Five years later, the 2000 Review Conference finally adopted a Final Document , which contained concrete measures, including "13 practical steps" for systematic and progressive efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament.
These challenges to the non-proliferation regime not only jeopardize the credibility, efficacy, and viability of the Treaty; they have also cast a long shadow of doubt on the future of nuclear disarmament itself.
Deliberations and negotiations both within the NPT regime and in other areas of disarmament have reached a difficult stage, if not a stalemate.
BackNext