Example collocations logo

Weapons in sentence

2993 examples of Weapons in a sentence

But are those weapons up to the task?
Despite more than two decades of on-again, off-again negotiations, North Korea’s nuclear weapons program is pushing the world toward a strategic watershed much like the one that the West faced 60 years ago, when the United States and the Soviet Union faced off against each other in Europe.
The US, with its monopoly on nuclear weapons, could launch a nuclear strike from Europe on the Soviet homeland.
Preemption – an attack on the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons – would have started WWIII, a distinctly unappealing prospect.
The third option, acquisition of nuclear armaments by potentially threatened countries, was based on the assumption that a government would be willing to use such weapons to defend its own country, if not another one.
French President Charles de Gaulle invoked this logic to justify his country’s nuclear weapons program, although he also had other reasons for wanting France to join the nuclear “club.”
The US backed up its stance by deploying nuclear weapons on the European continent, and by stationing troops on the front lines in Germany as a “trip-wire”: an attack there would trigger US participation in any war the communist side might begin.
North Korea’s nuclear weapons program threatens to upset that balance, by giving its regime the capacity, through the long-range ballistic missiles it is testing, to strike the West Coast of the US, thereby raising a new version of an old question: would the US risk Los Angeles to protect Seoul?
If East Asian countries come to doubt the credibility of the US commitment to their defense – and Trump has made clear his reservations about US alliances – they can build their own nuclear weapons, as France did.
But an East Asia in which several countries possessed nuclear weapons would not necessarily be stable.
But, despite its opposition to North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and its lack of enthusiasm for the Kim dynasty, the Chinese government has thus far refrained from applying pressure by threatening to sever the North’s lifeline.
That has been true of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program for almost a quarter-century.
In the North is a state that can best be described as a prison camp, run by a hereditary despotic leader whose regime – most politely described as a cult – is pursuing an unrelenting drive to develop weapons of mass destruction.
First, a government that possesses basic scientific knowhow and modern manufacturing capability, and is determined to develop a number of rudimentary nuclear weapons, will most likely succeed, sooner or later.
Although sanctions may increase the cost of producing nuclear weapons, history suggests that governments are willing to pay a significant price if they place a high enough value on having them.
The United States opposed Pakistan’s development of nuclear weapons, but was slow to act, owing to its desire in the 1980s for Pakistani support in fighting the Soviet Union’s occupation of Afghanistan.
Fifth, some three quarters of a century since they were first and last used, and a quarter-century after the Cold War’s end, nuclear weapons are judged to have value.
More recently, Ukraine, Libya, and Iraq all gave up their nuclear weapons programs either voluntarily or under pressure.
Sixth, the Non-Proliferation Treaty – the 1970 accord that underpins global efforts to discourage the spread of nuclear weapons beyond the five countries (the US, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France) that are recognized as legitimate nuclear weapons states for an unspecified but limited period of time – is inadequate.
Seventh, new diplomatic efforts, like the recent ban on all nuclear weapons organized by the United Nations General Assembly, will have no discernable effect.
There is a clear norm against the spread of nuclear weapons, but there is no consensus or treaty on what, if anything, is to be done once a country develops or acquires nuclear weapons.
It is much too soon, for example, to conclude that Iran will not one day develop nuclear weapons.
The agenda included not only these companies’ available weapons stockpiles, but also the Chinese firms’ promise to provide additional weapons if required.
For example, instead of making an effort to foster peace in Sudan, as a permanent, veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council should, China’s deep involvement with Sudan, through the provision of oil infrastructure and weapons, actually prolonged the Darfur conflict.
A letter to Chinese officials, signed by many members of the US Congress, and a report by Amnesty International state that China exported weapons to Sudan in violation of UN resolutions.
The irony, however, is that withdrawal might lead the West into a new, far more dangerous regional war as Iran proceeds toward its goal of developing nuclear weapons.
The creation of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, together with US President George W. Bush's recent proposal to add $10 billion in funds to fight HIV/AIDS, mean that the financial weapons needed to wage the fight against this epidemic are beginning to arrive.
So tweeted US President Donald Trump just hours after more than a hundred American, French, and British cruise missiles hit three sites in Syria believed to be associated with chemical weapons production.
The mission that was “accomplished” was to deliver the message that using chemical weapons would not be cost-free for those responsible.
Ideally, punitive strikes such as these would deter Syria’s government, or any other, from ever using chemical weapons again in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
BackNext