Example collocations logo

Weapons in sentence

2993 examples of Weapons in a sentence

What Bashar al-Assad’s government achieved with chemical weapons – gaining control of rebel-held areas in Douma and eastern Ghouta – outweighed the price it paid.
And it is a near-certainty that the Syrian government continues to possess chemical weapons, and could produce additional supplies without detection.
Military action to enforce the international norm against the use of chemical weapons is legitimate and welcome, as was the decision to coordinate the response with allies and to threaten additional strikes if chemical weapons were used again.
The Syrian government could reasonably interpret US policy as follows: “We will stand by and do nothing while you terrorize or kill your own people so long as you do not use chemical weapons.”
The risk in Iran is an ever more hostile regime armed with nuclear weapons.
This bodes ill for improved relations with Iran in the short run, and makes it imperative that Western powers unite to make it unambiguously clear that any use of nuclear weapons or materials by Iran or terror groups aligned with Iran will result in an immediate and devastating response.
(China developed its nuclear weapons just before its Cultural Revolution, mainly to deter the Soviet Union, but never used them).
Cyber weapons are relatively cheap (and thus widely accessible) and capable of reaching anywhere in the world.
They are the future weapons of choice for attacking or blackmailing an adversary.
Opposing parties use the same weapons, develop comparable tactics, and preach increasingly similar ideals.
At the same time, he would expand the military, spending more money on weapons that do not work against enemies that do not exist, enriching defense contractors like Halliburton at the expense of desperately needed public investment in infrastructure and education.
China has financial weapons, including trillions of dollars of US debt.
And yet there are persistent reports that chemical weapons, including sulfur mustard (commonly known as mustard gas) and chlorine bombs deployed against civilians, continue to be used in Syria.
Allowing the use of chemical weapons to go unpunished not only could reverse one of the few promising developments in the Syrian conflict; it also threatens to undermine international norms on the use of toxic gas and nerve agents, increasing the possibility that they will be used in terrorist attacks.
Horrific images of women and children dying in agony mobilized international consensus against the use of these types of weapons.
Less than a year later, the mission accomplished what no military intervention could have achieved; the strategic threat from Syria’s chemical weapons was effectively eliminated.
Work to clarify certain aspects of the government’s initial declaration about its weapons program is ongoing; but 1,300 metric tons of chemical weapons, including sulfur mustard and precursors for deadly nerve agents, have been accounted for and destroyed under the watchful eyes of OPCW inspectors.
Since 1997, 192 countries have agreed to be bound by its provisions, and 91% of the world’s declared chemical weapons have been destroyed.
The continued use of chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict is not only causing terrible suffering among the country’s civilian population; it also risks eroding the convention’s credibility.
It was on the basis of these findings that the UN Security Council agreed in August 2015 to create a joint investigative mechanism of the OPCW and the UN and task it with identifying those responsible for the use of chemical weapons in the conflict.
Once those responsible for the use of chemical weapons have been identified, the international community must ensure that they are prosecuted, in order to send a clear signal about the inviolability of the global ban.
Persistent allegations that non-state actors are using chemical weapons in Syria and northern Iraq are of particular concern, as they raise the possibility of toxic chemicals being used in terrorist attacks.
So, to ensure that its brutal dictatorship survives, the ruling Workers’ Party of Korea, led by the Kim clan, hit upon the idea of developing nuclear weapons and the systems needed to deliver them.
A military confrontation on the Korean Peninsula could lead to a nightmare scenario in which nuclear weapons are used, or even to a larger clash between nuclear-armed global powers.
While Shia-majority Iraq has attempted to portray itself as neutral, it has permitted Iranian flights to use its airspace to carry weapons to President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.
Now, with Obama’s decision to send arms as well, his “red line” in Syria – the use of chemical weapons – could well create a legacy as damaging to the region as that of the Sykes-Picot “line in the sand” proved to be.
To be sure, in the 1990’s the US and Russia reduced their nuclear arsenals from 65,000 to approximately 26,000 weapons.
Moreover, there are another 1,000 nuclear weapons in the hands of other nuclear states.
Responsibility for this lays largely with the Bush administration which, by terminating the ABM Treaty, not only weakened the international control systems for nuclear weapons, but also sat on its hands when confronted with the NPT’s imminent collapse.
The use of nuclear weapons by terrorists would not only result in a major humanitarian tragedy, but also would most likely move the world beyond the threshold for actually waging a nuclear war.
BackNext