Example collocations logo

Weapons in sentence

2993 examples of Weapons in a sentence

Russia is no longer implementing the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, which led to the removal of tens of thousands of tanks and heavy weapons from Europe in the years after 1990.
In these desperate circumstances, North Korea’s leaders clung to their strategy of developing nuclear weapons as a last resort to defend the security of their regime.
Will the North’s would-be leaders be able to manage the country’s stock of nuclear weapons responsibly and safely without transferring a few of them abroad, much less respond to international pressure to dismantle them in a reasonable and flexible manner?
Indeed, as we face today’s security challenges - terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, failed states - we cannot afford not to.
Anxiety over China’s conventional military superiority probably motivated, at least partly, Russia’s 2009 announcement of a new military doctrine explicitly reserving the right to first use of nuclear weapons – a stance that resembles America’s Cold War force posture, aimed at deterring superior conventional Soviet forces in Europe.
This view was reinforced when Pakistan became the essential conduit of weapons to Afghans fighting the Soviet occupation of their country.
Relations suffered further from Pakistan’s development of nuclear weapons, its provision of sanctuary and support to the Taliban, and its willingness to extend hospitality to some of the world’s most dangerous terrorists, including Osama bin Laden.
The breakthrough in bilateral ties came a decade ago, when the US lifted sanctions introduced in response to India’s nuclear weapons program and then signed an accord paving the way for US involvement in India’s civil nuclear energy program.
India, unlike both Pakistan and North Korea, is seen as a responsible nuclear power, a country the US now supports for membership in various groups designed to stem the further spread of nuclear materials and weapons.
These hybrid wars are fought using a wide variety of weapons – not all of which have firepower.
Soon enough, the Bush administration became obsessed with promoting the idea that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, despite the absence of any conclusive evidence.
The fruits of prosperity should be reinvested in improving people’s lives, not in weapons that can take them.
They will need to provide medium-range rockets and light armored vehicles to anti-regime forces, in addition to training them to use their weapons properly.
Without a large influx of instructors and weapons, the rebels will not be able to advance toward the capital, Tripoli, in the coming months.
Nuclear weapons would make the threat posed by the Iranian regime all the more severe.
The rise of incompetent states brings about huge challenges: proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, religious and ethnic strife, rivalry for natural resources, waves of migration, drug trafficking, and deterioration of the environment.
Bombs AwayLONDON – One of the most dispiriting features of today’s international debates is that the threat to humanity posed by the world’s 23,000 nuclear weapons – and by those who would build more of them, or be only too willing to use them – has been consigned to the margin of politics.
And he did deliver on a major new arms-reduction treaty with Russia, and hosted a summit aimed at reducing the vulnerability of nuclear weapons and materials to theft or diversion.
Japan’s Fukushima disaster has generated a massive debate about the safety of nuclear power, but not about nuclear weapons.
Indeed, Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem an eternity ago; new nuclear-weapons states have emerged without the world ending; no terrorist nuclear device has threatened a major city; and possession of nuclear weapons, for the states that have them, seems to be a source of comfort and pride rather than concern or embarrassment.
In a series of opinion articles over the last five years, they have repeatedly sounded the alarm that the risks of nuclear weapons outweigh any possible usefulness in today’s security environment.
Moreover, they have called for a complete rethinking of deterrence strategy, in order to minimize, and ultimately eliminate, reliance on the most indiscriminately destructive weapons ever invented.
The first message is that the threat of a nuclear weapons catastrophe remains alarmingly real.
So long as nuclear weapons remain, states can justify maintaining a minimum nuclear-deterrent capability.
But that can be done without weapons on high alert, and with drastically reduced arsenals in the case of the US and Russia, and, at worst, at current levels for the other nuclear-armed states.
The third message is that if the existing nuclear powers sincerely want to prevent others from joining their club, they cannot keep justifying the possession of nuclear weapons as a means of protection for themselves or their allies against other weapons of mass destruction, especially biological weapons, or conventional weapons.
Indeed, China must be mindful of India’s “core interests” as well, especially because it has grievously damaged at least one such interest by enabling Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons.
The weapons of shame and international opprobrium should be mustered to make it impossible for any democratic nation to legitimize a coup in another democratic country.
Instead, policymakers should focus on supporting employment and productivity gains – historically the most potent weapons against poverty.
Relearning to Love the BombWASHINGTON, DC – The shocking thing about nuclear weapons is that they seem to have lost their power to shock.
BackNext