Example collocations logo

Weapons in sentence

2993 examples of Weapons in a sentence

First, “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law.”
Finally, in October 2016, the UN General Assembly’s First Committee, which is responsible for international peace and security, voted “to convene in 2017 a United Nations conference to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.”
The new resolution’s instructions are straightforward: “States participating in the conference” should “make their best endeavors to conclude as soon as possible a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.”
Will they keep their promises to disarm and join the treaty, or will they choose their weapons over international law and the will of the global community?
The Pakistani Nuclear Deal That Wasn’tLAHORE – Recently, it came to light that the United States was attempting to negotiate with Pakistan a deal to constrain the Pakistanis’ fast-growing nuclear weapons program.
First, David Ignatius of The Washington Post reported, on the basis of conversations with senior US officials, that agreement had already been reached on a number of steps Pakistan would take to reduce its dependence on nuclear weapons for deterrence.
Rather, it seemed that the US was using the media to put pressure on Pakistan’s government to respond more readily to America’s pleas to cap production of tactical weapons and the short-range missiles that could deliver them.
In exchange for this, however, Pakistan would have to limit the number of tactical nuclear weapons in its arsenal and cease development work on them.
Moreover, Pakistan would have to mothball the short-range “Nasr” missile, which has already been shown to be capable of delivering small nuclear weapons over a distance of 50-75 kilometers.
“Tactical nuclear weapons,” the Pakistani military official explained, “will deter India from following through on this strategy.”
After abandoning his quest for nuclear weapons in exchange for normalization of relations with the US and the world, Qaddafi died a horrible death (during which he was tortured and sodomized with a bayonet).
On the contrary, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un seems to be exhorting his scientists and engineers to accelerate development of nuclear weapons.
The first threat is rooted in North Korea’s pursuit of enhanced military capabilities through a ballistic-missile program and the development of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, and biological).
But such efforts have so far focused on “hardware” modernization – allocating resources for the procurement and acquisition of selected advanced weapons technologies, systems, and platforms, and integrating them into existing organizational force structures and operational concepts.
Does the recently issued Joint Declaration on Defense Cooperation, which establishes intent to move beyond weapons sales to the co-production of military hardware,mark a turning point, or is it merely a contrivance to placate India?
The difference is that India can actually pay for the weapons that it acquires.
It is now purchasing additional US weapons systems – 22 Apache attack helicopters, six C-130J turbo military transport aircraft, 15 Chinook heavy-lift helicopters, and 145 M-777 ultra-light howitzers – worth $5 billion.
The country has yet to develop a credible armament-production base like that of, say, Japan, which is co-developing advanced weapons systems with the US.
As it stands, the US sells mainly defensive weapons systems to India, while Russia, for example, offers India offensive weapons, including strategic bombers, an aircraft carrier, and a lease on a nuclear submarine.
Would the US be willing to sell India offensive weapons – including high-precision conventional arms, anti-submarine systems, and long-range air- and sea-launched cruise missiles – that could help to deter Chinese military preemption?
Given international acceptance of the 2010 US-India bilateral nuclear deal – unfortunately, without concessions from India (like accession to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty or a cap on nuclear weapons) – Australia simply had no remaining policy leverage.
Another looming threat is a scenario in which the Assad regime’s stockpiles of missiles and chemical weapons fall into – or are actually transferred to – the wrong hands.
Israel has maintained a cautious stance thus far, but has indicated that it will not remain passive if such weapons end up with Hezbollah.
They believed that neither side would use nuclear weapons, owing to the fear of retaliation.
Kennedy diagnosed the problem succinctly: “We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget counter-weapons.”
Yes, there are important matters to discuss, notably Iran’s nuclear ambitions; but several countries in Iran’s neighborhood already possess nuclear weapons, threatening the entire region.
These include proliferation of weapons of mass destruction around Russia's borders; international terrorism and drug trafficking which benefit from social and economic dislocations, especially across the Greater Middle East; and the challenge of Islamic militancy.
French President Jacques Chirac recently implied that we should not overestimate the seriousness of Iran’s possessing nuclear weapons.
Yet the NPT is clear: any signatory country that gives up nuclear weapons and accepts the IAEA’s absolute and unconditional control is entitled to produce electric energy from civil nuclear sources, and to receive from the international community, if necessary, technical and financial support.
Nor has the Iranian government ever publicly expressed a will to possess nuclear weapons.
BackNext