Not exact matches
Nuclear weapons have been
used exactly twice in combat — both times
by the US, and both times dropped
by a propeller aircraft over largely unprotected Japanese airspace at the close of World War II.
And any
use of
nuclear weapons by the North will be met with a massive military response that is both effective and overwhelming,» Mattis said.
What guides you in deciding whether fire - bombing a city or
using nuclear weapons is permissible under the moral framework you try to live
by?
And we are all frightened at the prospect of the
use of
nuclear weapons by terrorists against innocent civilian populations.
The possession of
nuclear weapons that are kept to deter their
use by the other side has some justification, but the moment we accept the actual possibility of our
using them to initiate the
nuclear stage of a war, we are taking upon ourselves an unexamined moral responsibility.
because it was scientists that created the
Nuclear bomb, in fact it was science that created all
weapons... so
by your logic, Science is to blame for the Death of EVERY human being in Warfare throughout time except for those killed
by rocks and sticks that are unsharpened and / or killed
by use of barehands... Science has slaughtered BILLIONS...... of course that's nonsense right?
N Korea is run
by a dictator who is currently threatening to
use the
nuclear weapons he has on a fairly flimsy pretext.
The scenario in which North Korea could
use nuclear weapons is the scenario when they are invaded, for example
by US.
I am also encouraged
by the historic agreement between the US and Partners on one hand and Iran on the other to curtail the development of
nuclear weapons and encourage the peaceful
use of
nuclear technology.
The questions is if Iran will want and decide in the future, after it is not being sanctioned
by no one and the agreement is over, to follow a path to start
using its
nuclear program to create
weapons of mass destruction.
Proponents of a ban argue that, not only would the
use of
nuclear weapons contravene the spirit of the general principles of the laws of war, the humanitarian and environmental consequences of
nuclear war would not be contained
by national borders.
The high likelihood of a defeat of North Korea to the US and South Korea, followed
by the implosion of the country, would be more than enough to deter any impulses of Pyongyang from
using its
nuclear weapons.
Korea likely sees us for the hypocrites we are, thus, doesn't want to be told
by the only people in the history of the world to ever
use nuclear weapons, what to do with theirs.
For example, both
nuclear weapons that were actually
used were delivered
by bomber.
Use of nuclear weapons by the USA or any other nation would be a huge line to cross, legitimizing their use by all other nuclear powe
Use of
nuclear weapons by the USA or any other nation would be a huge line to cross, legitimizing their
use by all other nuclear powe
use by all other
nuclear powers.
The US wouldn't
use a
nuclear weapon to destroy a bioweapon site in a first strike, they would (
by declared policy of decades)
use one to retaliate once that bioweapon has been
used against them.
Then he sat down with the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg, and in the space of a thirty second soundbite turned the clock back thirty years
by announcing he would never contemplate the
use of
nuclear weapons.
«That the Parliament looks critically at the results of a new poll on support for
nuclear weapons in Scotland commissioned by Lord Ashcroft; believes that the result stating that 51 % of Scots want the Trident nuclear deterrent to be replaced is misguidedly being used to suggest that a majority of Scots support keeping nuclear weapons in Scotland; understands that the results of this poll were intended to challenge the findings of a recent poll commissioned by the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament that showed a decisive 75 % majority of the Scottish public is against both the cost and the reasoning behind the UK Government's intention to keep all of its nuclear weapons stationed in Scotland; understands that, while Lord Ashcroft conducted the poll to supposedly show that «more than half of Scots are in favour of nuclear weapons», the poll showed that only 37 % of Scots believe so in principle, compared with 48 % who do not; questions the integrity of a poll that, it understands, was privately paid for by a wealthy Tory backer; considers that Lord Ashcroft is spinning the results, and believes that he should stop doing so and accept what it considers the fact proven time and again that Scots want rid of nuclear weapons.
nuclear weapons in Scotland commissioned
by Lord Ashcroft; believes that the result stating that 51 % of Scots want the Trident
nuclear deterrent to be replaced is misguidedly being used to suggest that a majority of Scots support keeping nuclear weapons in Scotland; understands that the results of this poll were intended to challenge the findings of a recent poll commissioned by the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament that showed a decisive 75 % majority of the Scottish public is against both the cost and the reasoning behind the UK Government's intention to keep all of its nuclear weapons stationed in Scotland; understands that, while Lord Ashcroft conducted the poll to supposedly show that «more than half of Scots are in favour of nuclear weapons», the poll showed that only 37 % of Scots believe so in principle, compared with 48 % who do not; questions the integrity of a poll that, it understands, was privately paid for by a wealthy Tory backer; considers that Lord Ashcroft is spinning the results, and believes that he should stop doing so and accept what it considers the fact proven time and again that Scots want rid of nuclear weapons.
nuclear deterrent to be replaced is misguidedly being
used to suggest that a majority of Scots support keeping
nuclear weapons in Scotland; understands that the results of this poll were intended to challenge the findings of a recent poll commissioned by the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament that showed a decisive 75 % majority of the Scottish public is against both the cost and the reasoning behind the UK Government's intention to keep all of its nuclear weapons stationed in Scotland; understands that, while Lord Ashcroft conducted the poll to supposedly show that «more than half of Scots are in favour of nuclear weapons», the poll showed that only 37 % of Scots believe so in principle, compared with 48 % who do not; questions the integrity of a poll that, it understands, was privately paid for by a wealthy Tory backer; considers that Lord Ashcroft is spinning the results, and believes that he should stop doing so and accept what it considers the fact proven time and again that Scots want rid of nuclear weapons.
nuclear weapons in Scotland; understands that the results of this poll were intended to challenge the findings of a recent poll commissioned
by the Scottish Campaign for
Nuclear Disarmament that showed a decisive 75 % majority of the Scottish public is against both the cost and the reasoning behind the UK Government's intention to keep all of its nuclear weapons stationed in Scotland; understands that, while Lord Ashcroft conducted the poll to supposedly show that «more than half of Scots are in favour of nuclear weapons», the poll showed that only 37 % of Scots believe so in principle, compared with 48 % who do not; questions the integrity of a poll that, it understands, was privately paid for by a wealthy Tory backer; considers that Lord Ashcroft is spinning the results, and believes that he should stop doing so and accept what it considers the fact proven time and again that Scots want rid of nuclear weapons.
Nuclear Disarmament that showed a decisive 75 % majority of the Scottish public is against both the cost and the reasoning behind the UK Government's intention to keep all of its
nuclear weapons stationed in Scotland; understands that, while Lord Ashcroft conducted the poll to supposedly show that «more than half of Scots are in favour of nuclear weapons», the poll showed that only 37 % of Scots believe so in principle, compared with 48 % who do not; questions the integrity of a poll that, it understands, was privately paid for by a wealthy Tory backer; considers that Lord Ashcroft is spinning the results, and believes that he should stop doing so and accept what it considers the fact proven time and again that Scots want rid of nuclear weapons.
nuclear weapons stationed in Scotland; understands that, while Lord Ashcroft conducted the poll to supposedly show that «more than half of Scots are in favour of
nuclear weapons», the poll showed that only 37 % of Scots believe so in principle, compared with 48 % who do not; questions the integrity of a poll that, it understands, was privately paid for by a wealthy Tory backer; considers that Lord Ashcroft is spinning the results, and believes that he should stop doing so and accept what it considers the fact proven time and again that Scots want rid of nuclear weapons.
nuclear weapons», the poll showed that only 37 % of Scots believe so in principle, compared with 48 % who do not; questions the integrity of a poll that, it understands, was privately paid for
by a wealthy Tory backer; considers that Lord Ashcroft is spinning the results, and believes that he should stop doing so and accept what it considers the fact proven time and again that Scots want rid of
nuclear weapons.
nuclear weapons.»
He added: «The whole argument
used for Britain having a separate
weapons establishment is that this is required
by the [
nuclear] non-proliferation treaty, as technology - sharing is not allowed.
The report is replete with examples of the social controversies involving science and technology at that time - the biological and environmental effects of
nuclear weapons testing, DDT and other dioxins, the
use of defoliants and herbicides
by the U.S. military in Vietnam, the safety of
nuclear power plants, the ban on fetal research, a moratorium on recombinant DNA research, the need for human subject protections and informed consent in genetics research, the misuse of psychology as a tool for torture, the implications of national security controls on science; misconduct in science, and the role of and protections for whistleblowers - many of which continue to resonate in the science and society relationship of today.
Even during the Cold War, Pantex workers dismantled
nuclear weapons: mostly those that had passed their
use -
by date.
The US
used to generate the isotope as a
by - product of cold - war
nuclear weapons programmes.
But under the NNPA, U.S. action can be triggered only
by concerns that U.S. - origin spent fuel may be
used for
nuclear weapons production, or may be vulnerable to theft or terrorism.
You agree that none of the material on the Website, nor any direct product therefrom, is being or will be acquired for, shipped, transferred, or re-exported, directly or indirectly, to proscribed or embargoed countries or their nationals, nor be
used for
nuclear activities, chemical biological
weapons, or missile projects unless authorized
by the U.S. Government.
Missiles replaced
by turbines: Replacing the powerful arms industry with the powerful «renewables» industry — of course in both case it doesn't matter that the costly
nuclear weapons were never
used, likewise it doesn't matter that wind power is useless.
The IAEA has categorized four potential
nuclear security threats (or, more accurately,
nuclear security risks): the acquisition of
nuclear weapons by theft; the creation of
nuclear explosive devices
using stolen
nuclear materials; the
use of radioactive sources in radiological dispersal devices (RDDs); and the radiological hazards caused
by an attack on, or sabotage of, a facility or a transport vehicle.
Since a
by - product of reprocessing is plutonium, which can be
used to make
nuclear weapons, President Carter ordered the end of reprocessing, citing security risks.
extreme heat; or b) a
nuclear winter; or most likely c) extreme heat followed
by a
nuclear winter — Joe Neubarth writes: «The program is running and we are rushing to an abrupt end... Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) is going up to 17ºC in the next few years — this will kill @ 7 billion people... When about 6 billion people have died from global heating, they will
use nuclear weapons to refreeze the Arctic...»
It was the soft left that got most bothered
by nuclear power, for reasons that had more to do with pacifism and the thought that the USSR might one day
use nuclear weapons against the US, or someone else might get involved in an exchange like India and Pakistan or S Africa.
However, when one takes into account the mode of response, which is the
use of
nuclear weapons, the threshold set
by the Caroline formula seems justified, requiring, at the very least, to establish an undisputable need to defend state's «vital interests».
Yet, the range of scenarios potentially triggering such a first
use of
nuclear weapons by the US is indicative of a foreseeable possibility to
use force not only in response but also in anticipation.
The NPR is essentially based upon the strategy of deterrence (which Judge Oda considered «legitimized
by international law» in his Dissenting Opinion to the
Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion (para 45)-RRB-, presuming nuclear weapons to be used efficiently so long as they are not actuall
Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion (para 45)-RRB-, presuming
nuclear weapons to be used efficiently so long as they are not actuall
nuclear weapons to be
used efficiently so long as they are not actually
used.
In this context, the very
use of the concept of «vital interests» should be viewed as problematic, having regard to the standard of «the very survival of a state», which the ICJ considered as possibly justifying self - defense
by means of
nuclear weapons (Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, pa
nuclear weapons (
Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, pa
Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, para 97).
You also agree that you will not
use said software for any purposes where prohibited
by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture, or production of
nuclear, missile, chemical, or biological
weapons.
A portion of the funds raised in the ICO offering will also be
used to finance health care to islanders still affected
by US
nuclear weapons testing in the area decades ago, Paul said.