Sentences with phrase «did use nuclear weapons»

I would like to gain more information about what would happen if someone did use nuclear weapons.

It is generally acknowledged that if North Korea did use nuclear weapons on the US, the US would then destroy it.

Not exact matches

When a country does not have nuclear weapons but has a peaceful nuclear program that could be used to produce nuclear weapons, it is said to be in a state of «nuclear latency.»

Remember Martin, we are still the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon not once but I do believe twice.

So the United Methodist bishops reject the traditional just - war argument because «we are convinced that no... use of nuclear weapons offers any reasonable hope of success» (p. 13) If we don't get peace, what might happen to us?

I don't know what foolish things people and nations will permit themselves to do in the near future, what compacts we will make with hell through the use of nuclear and biological weapons, what ecological disasters we will actively perpetrate or merely permit to happen or what unprecedented human tragedy we will willingly or witlessly sponsor.

It should be noted, however, that war continued, and continues, to be an instrument of statecraft — so long as it does not involve the use or threatened use of nuclear weapons.

Not only did they become the first and only nation to use nuclear weapons against another, they did it twice.

Albert Schweitzer consistently refused political involvements and judgments, though he did join in protest against the use of nuclear weapons.

But in the case of the Korean peninsula, United States troops do have the power to start using nuclear weapons without any consent from the people, including the Korean commanders.

Let's move ahead I don't see people going to war with bow and arrows those times are gone, the Roman Empire was great using bows and arrows but now it's guns and nuclear weapons but in our case we go to war with sticks and wipes hoping to defeat teams with Guns and nuclear weapons..

The army and navy in all honesty we did not know he held a 3rd dan black belt in sho rea, he had been trained in air born and air assault and nuclear weapons and their security on trident submarines so when somebody attacked him or use a weapon to intimidate him he considered only one option, deadly force had just been authorized.

One chief difference is - neither India nor Pakistan have threatened to use their nuclear weapons... the deterrence aspect doesn't have to be vocalized.

Based on America's reluctance to use nuclear weapons, and America's desire not to risk American cities, Kim may believe he can attack a neighbor, perhaps even with a nuclear weapon, without fear of a nuclear response from America so long as he maintains the ability to threaten America directly but doesn't actually attack America.

The US presidential Republican nominee Donald Trump stated that he did not rule out using nuclear weapons in the fight against the terrorist organization ISIS.

I don't really think that North Korea will use any of their potentially available nuclear weapons.

Does this mean that North Korea will use 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.

Having nuclear weapons doesn't mean that you should use them, having them only means that rational states most likely won't use them against you.

«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.»

The public were overwhelmingly against using nuclear weapons against countries that do not have nuclear weapons (5 % support with 87 % against), or who have nuclear weapons but are not using them (11 % support with 77 % against).

When asked why this project is so important to him, he voiced the dominant perspective among weapon scientists at LLNL: He doesn't want nuclear weapons to be used and passionately believes the key to ensuring they aren't is to making sure the U.S. stockpile continues to be an effective deterrent.

Sophisticated technologies that can be used in civilian life and for making nuclear weapons present governments with a dilemma: how do they help manufacturers to keep their export sales high while ensuring that they do not supply would - be nuclear powers?

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.

Our problems with nuclear power plants stems from an early design that used fuel that was friendly towards making weapons; lithium does not have that problem.

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.