Example collocations logo

Weapons in sentence

2993 examples of Weapons in a sentence

Nearly 25 years after the Cold War’s end, we remain stuck with its strategic legacy: Nuclear weapons continue to underpin the international security policy of the world’s most powerful states.
There are too many risks – human error, technical flaws, negligence, cyber attacks, and more – to believe that these weapons will never be used.
The history of nuclear weapons since 1945 is studded with near misses – both before and after the Cuban missile crisis.
In fact, like past generations’ loading of the earth’s atmosphere with carbon, nuclear weapons represent a legacy to overcome.
But nuclear weapons, unusable and extremely expensive to maintain, are low-hanging fruit – a risk that we can easily grasp and eliminate.
The goal of next week’s Vienna conference is to provide the public with new and updated evidence of the impact of using nuclear weapons.
As long as nuclear weapons exist, it is irresponsible not to confront the implications of their use – implications for which there is no antidote or insurance policy.
In fact, China treats Pakistan as something of a guinea pig, selling the country weapons systems not deployed by the Chinese military and outdated or untested nuclear reactors.
And, as a newly released US Defense Department report shows, Pakistan – “China’s primary customer for conventional weapons” – is likely to host a Chinese naval hub intended to project power in the Indian Ocean region.
China provided critical assistance in building Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear weapons, including by reducing the likelihood of US sanctions or Indian retaliation.
Ethnic divisions, the extensive market in weapons, spillovers from Libya’s violence, and other factors have played a large role.
However, developing and exploiting the full array of potential new disease-fighting weapons will require outstanding scientists and engineers, including those with interdisciplinary training.
Luckily, it did not end with rebel forces seizing some of the dozens of US nuclear weapons stored at Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base, from which rebel aircraft departed.
Robert Peurifoy, a former senior weapons engineer at Sandia National Laboratories, disagrees.
He recently told the Los Angeles Times that such safeguards – earlier versions of which he helped to design – may only delay terrorists in using seized nuclear weapons.
Peurifoy’s statements have rightly raised concerns about the security of nuclear weapons stockpiled in insecure regions.
The country’s new mobile “battlefield nuclear weapons” – easier to purloin – augment current fears.
Adding nuclear weapons to that mix would be highly dangerous.
In China, the government effectively protected nuclear weapons sites threatened by Revolutionary Guards during the Cultural Revolution.
But it is a leap to presume that these precedents mean that nuclear weapons will remain safe, especially in unstable countries like Pakistan and North Korea.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq granted the US unfettered access to all possible sites where weapons of mass destruction could be stored.
Likewise, invasion and occupation of either North Korea or Pakistan would require massive armies risking a bitter conventional war and possible use of the weapons against the invaders.
The lesson from Turkey is not that the bombs of Incirlik – not to mention other nuclear weapons in unstable regions – are safe.
Rather, it is that our most deadly weapons could be compromised in an instant.
Assad now appears prepared to give up his chemical weapons in exchange for remaining in power.
Furthermore, deployment of chemical weapons invites escalation.
America’s president is not searching for excuses to start a war;Assad’s chemical weapons are not a fanciful pretext.
If the US had not responded to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons, the entire world would have asked what a US guarantee is worth if an American president’s “red line” is crossed without consequences.
Thus, in contrast to the West’s temporizing, the strategy of Assad’s allies is clearly defined: military victory for the regime, backed by ample supplies of weapons and, in the case of Iran, Lebanese proxy troops from Hezbollah on the ground.
If he succeeds – Syria’s chemical weapons are destroyed, a peace conference ends the civil war, a transitional government takes power, and the US and Iran launch direct negotiations about Iran’s nuclear program and regional stability in the Middle East – he will truly deserve his Nobel Peace Prize.
BackNext