Example collocations logo

Weapons in sentence

2993 examples of Weapons in a sentence

When Russia annexed Crimea last year, President Vladimir Putin announced his readiness to put Russian nuclear forces on alert, and even signaled plans to “surprise the West with our new developments in offensive nuclear weapons.”
Meanwhile, China and India are steadily increasing the size of their nuclear arsenals, and Pakistan is doing so even faster, even spelling out plans to combine battlefield nukes with conventional weapons.
Spooked by Russia’s incursions into Ukraine, North Korea’s erratic intransigence, and China’s new foreign-policy assertiveness, US allies and partners in East Asia and Europe have rushed back to unthinking embrace of Cold War assumptions about the deterrent utility of nuclear weapons and their central importance in security policy.
As my colleagues and I put it in our book-length report Nuclear Weapons: The State of Play 2015, launched in Geneva, Vienna, and Washington in March: “On the evidence of the size of their weapons arsenals, fissile material stocks, force modernization plans, stated doctrine and known deployment practices, all nine nuclear-armed states foresee indefinite retention of nuclear weapons and a continuing role for them in their security policies.”
The NPT, after all, is based on a bargain: states that do not possess nuclear weapons promise not to acquire them, in exchange for a pledge by those that do to move seriously toward eliminating their arsenals.
And recent developments have once again jeopardized that bargain, with many states again asking why, if the US, Russia, and others need nuclear weapons, they do not.
Aside from the Iran negotiations, other arms control cooperation is continuing, including between the US and Russia over the New START treaty to reduce strategic deployments, and over chemical weapons in Syria.
Despite lack of any visible progress toward ridding the Middle East of weapons of mass destruction, the signs are encouraging that Egypt and others in the region want to keep trying, and will not use the issue of a WMD-free zone to blow up the review conference, as had been feared.
Most encouraging of all, a major new international movement is gathering pace to focus policy attention on the horrific humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons, and to create the conditions for a treaty to ban them once and for all.
The nuclear-armed states will not sign on any time soon to any treaty that bans the use of their weapons under all circumstances.
They will resist even more strongly the outright elimination of their weapons, given that the world is probably still decades away from devising sufficient verification and enforcement measures.
The nuclear-armed states can and should make serious commitments to dramatic further reductions in the size of their arsenals; hold the number of weapons physically deployed and ready for immediate launch to an absolute minimum; and change their strategic doctrines to limit the role and salience of nuclear weapons, ideally by committing to “no first use.”
The Iranian regime continues to defy the international community’s efforts to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.
Iran remains several years away from mastering the technology needed to build nuclear weapons, which provides time to search for such diplomatic openings.
At the benign end of the spectrum, this realm includes actors as diverse as bankers electronically transferring huge sums; at the other end are terrorists transferring weapons or hackers disrupting Internet operations.
We want a new president who will aim to make a success of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Renewal Conference in 2010 by scrapping more weapons, abandoning research into them, and challenging others to do the same.
Whatever the outcome of Putin’s revisionism, Russia’s nuclear weapons, oil and gas, skills in cyber technology, and proximity to Europe, will give him the resources to cause problems for the West and the international system.
Concerned that the Bush administration might be misleading everyone about the Iraq war’s costs, just as it had about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and connection with Al Qaida, I teamed up with Linda Bilmes, a budget expert at Harvard, to examine the issue.
We do not attempt to explain whether the American people were deliberately misled regarding the war’s costs, or whether the Bush administration’s gross underestimate should be attributed to incompetence, as it vehemently argues is true in the case of weapons of mass destruction.
Moreover, the Trump administration recently announced that it would permit the sale of lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine, to counter Russian aggression there – a move that Russia says will only beget more violence.
Owning Up to Israel’s BombTEL AVIV – President Barack Obama’s vision of a world without nuclear weapons, and the recent agreement he signed with Russia aimed at cutting back the nuclear stockpiles of both countries, enhances his moral and political leadership.
From now on, it appeared to Israelis, the US will treat all states the same when it comes to nuclear weapons.
He expressed understanding for Iran’s desire to acquire nuclear weapons because, as he said, the Iranians are surrounded by nuclear powers such as Pakistan, India, Russia, and Israel.
It does not address nuclear-related weapons programs or guarantee inspections in military installations.
The JCPOA offered a model for counter-proliferation efforts, which included the decoupling of nuclear power – a safe and reliable energy source – from proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Inflation remains contained, but, more to the point, China’s government has an arsenal of other weapons (from taxes on capital inflows and capital-gains taxes to a variety of monetary instruments) at its disposal.
India also has significant military power, with an estimated 90-100 nuclear weapons, intermediate-range missiles, 1.3 million military personnel, and annual military expenditure of nearly $50 billion (3% of the world total).
Many fear that this is only the beginning of a long conflict that could include weapons – and casualties – far outside the realm of trade.
And as China well knows, North Korea would never give up its nuclear weapons without major changes in the military balance on and around the Korean Peninsula.
There is also the prospect of the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons, which have already been used in the Syrian conflict both by President Bashar al-Assad’s regime and the Islamic State.
BackNext