Example collocations logo

Weapons in sentence

2993 examples of Weapons in a sentence

But the new road has raised concerns, particularly in the US, that it could serve as a smuggling route for drugs and weapons, so the military feels obliged to set up checkpoints.
True, they could arguably acquire similar weapons elsewhere, but not necessarily as cheaply and conveniently.
For starters, the West’s decision not to intervene directly in Syria, particularly after the official exposure of the Assad government’s use of chemical weapons, has diminished confidence in the US among its traditional allies, particularly Saudi Arabia.
It has delivered self-driving (though still not flying) cars, as well as virtual personal assistants and even autonomous weapons.
The Trouble with North KoreaNEW YORK – Nobody would care much about North Korea – a small and isolated country of 24 million people, ruled by a grotesque dynasty that calls itself communist – if it were not for its nuclear weapons.
But France, China, and other Security Council members refused, arguing that the weapons inspectors then in Iraq should be allowed to continue their work in order to establish whether Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Whereas the US and Russia disagree about how to end the Syrian civil war, they have cooperated in disarming Syria of its chemical weapons.
In 1998, Russia first proposed a UN treaty to ban electronic and information weapons (including for propaganda purposes).
Last summer, Hadjiev’s brother and sister were arrested after they collaborated on a documentary about Turkmenistan, and were tried on trumped-up charges of weapons possession.
After all, North Korea’s reaction to the Bush administration’s policies was to drop out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, restart its nuclear program, and further develop its weapons production.
Indeed, it is believed that North Korea during this time increased its stockpile of nuclear weapons.
It includes actors as diverse as bankers electronically transferring sums larger than most national budgets, as well as terrorists transferring weapons or hackers disrupting Internet operations.
But progress soon stalled, with Russia rejecting US proposals for further reductions, especially of tactical nuclear weapons – an area in which Russia dominates.
By proposing a diplomatic solution to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, Putin offered Obama a way out of the political impasse – threatening a military intervention with little support at home or abroad – in which he found himself.
If Syria’s chemical weapons are destroyed, the agreement will have established an invaluable precedent concerning the behavior of great powers in a time of crisis.
Those glaciers are disappearing, and the world’s most populous countries – all with significant military capabilities, including nuclear weapons – will find themselves facing an existential crisis if too little water is available.
Of course, most Korean liberals recognize that North Korea is not East Germany, which never threatened West Germany or the United States with nuclear weapons.
Technological support for Iran’s nuclear programs could impede the ongoing international negotiations aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, especially as the Iranians are looking for leverage in the talks.
After all, any crisis creates new opportunities (for example, the Syrian civil war has prompted important action on chemical weapons).
The thinking (or, more accurately, the hope) was that Iran’s leadership, if forced to choose between regime survival and nuclear weapons, would choose the former.
Restrictions on deployment of offensive weapons, for example, remain in place.
Of course, unlike the UK and France, Japan does not have the option to possess nuclear weapons.
Most non-Americans would find it crazy that neither Romney nor Barack Obama supported stricter gun-control laws (with Obama making an exception only for assault weapons such as AK-47s), in a country where it is sometimes easier to buy guns than it is to vote.
His signature achievement was joint authorship with then-Democratic Senator Sam Nunn of the 1992 Cooperative Threat Reduction program (universally known as “Nunn-Lugar”), which successfully secured and dismantled nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in former Soviet states.
Beyond that, Lugar had fully supported Obama’s vision, like that of Ronald Reagan before him, of a world without nuclear weapons, and his endorsement of the New START treaty with Russia, reducing the number of deployed strategic weapons, was crucial in securing its narrow ratification by the Senate last year.
The context was not explained, but what Obama said in full was this: “I’ve worked with Republican Senator Dick Lugar to pass a law that will secure and destroy some of the world’s deadliest, unguarded weapons,” and, “What I did was reach out to Senator Dick Lugar, a Republican, to help lock down loose nuclear weapons.”
The recurring criticism directed at President Barack Obama for not following through on his threat to attack Syria if it used chemical weapons completely misses the point.
The object was to stop these weapons from being used by the Assad regime, and diplomacy – backed by the threat of force – appears to have achieved just that (although there have been recent reports, unconfirmed but worrying, of both rebel use and regime backsliding).
Even the armed bandits who waylay relief supplies – making necessary a guard of soldiers with automatic weapons, standing every few hundred yards – cannot destroy this moment.
We need a sustained global commitment to disarmament and continued common efforts to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction in order to maintain the credibility of the collective security system.
BackNext