Sentences with phrase «n't use nuclear weapons»

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.

The madman will not even state that he would not use nuclear weapons on Europe.

Not exact matches

What's more, many countries, including the US, use nuclear weapons that can't be stopped after launch, even if they were sent in error or unjustified malice.

«The United States, though inherently hostile to North Korea, will get to know once our talk begins that I am not the kind of person who will use nuclear weapons against the South or the United States across the Pacific,» Moon's press secretary Yoon Young - chan quoted Kim as saying.

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.»

In Wednesday's MSNBC interview, Trump said he would not rule out the possibility of using nuclear weapons to combat Islamic State militants.

Under that 2015 deal, Tehran agreed to curb its nuclear programme to satisfy world powers that it would not be used to develop weapons.

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?

Many Christians, however, who were not pacifist, opposed the possible use of nuclear weapons and also opposed threats to use such weapons.

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.

As to nuclear weapons, I think their use was immoral and that we ought not make moral decisions based on weighing the number of lives saved or (potentially) lost.

How can we know that any use of nuclear weapons will not result in catastrophic escalation?

Even if nuclear weapons were to be used as counterforce, and even assuming that noncombatants could be protected, the question of escalation would remain unanswered — not to mention long - term environmental or genetic damage.

Even though Rickover seems given over to the probability of nuclear extinction, he nevertheless seems to appreciate that weapons are not «neutral,» that their presence introduces a compelling temptation for human beings to use them.

If so, he should read Hartshorne's «Note» at the conclusion of Reality as Social Process, published in 1953.41 There he speaks of pacifism as error and afirms his conviction that the United States should not renounce the use either of strategic bombing or nuclear weapons in its «Cold War» with Russia.

Without prior notice to the NATO nations, United States troops are not allowed to use nuclear weapons in Europe.

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.

Here it's important to note that Russia always had the view that there was no evidence that Iran's nuclear program was used for a weapons program so there were no legal grounds for adopting a chapter 7 UNSC resolution for which the requirement is not only that there must be a problem but that this problem must put international peace and security at risk.

«Until recently having or not having nuclear weapons appeared to be and was treated as a question of yes or no», wrote Thomas Schelling in a piece called «Who Will have The Bomb», written in 1976 following India's first use of a «peaceful» nuclear explosive (PNE).

N Korea is run by a dictator who is currently threatening to use the nuclear weapons he has on a fairly flimsy pretext.

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

While I mostly trust the current leadership not to make first use of nuclear weapons, that is not the case when you consider all the potential future leaders of India or Pakistan.

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.

No first strike means a commitment not to use nuclear weapons unless they are used on you.

Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, subcomponents, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

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.

They claim that the possession and use of nuclear weapons can not be reconciled with the principles of the laws of war.

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.

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.

Any hypothetical military engagement where a nuclear armed country were to be in danger of being completely overrun would change the calculation on whether they would be willing to use nuclear weapons, but Russia probably would not, for example, use their nuclear weapons as a deterrent against attacks against their conventional troops in Ukraine, even if they were in danger of being forced out of Ukraine completely because the retaliation would cost much more to them than what they would be losing.

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

The Council called on all states to sign up to the NPT and to set «realistic goals» to strengthen, at the 2010 Review Conference, all three of the Treaty's pillars - disarmament of countries currently possessing nuclear weapons, non-proliferation to countries not yet in possession, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy for all.

He was speaking as the Catholic bishops of England and Wales urged the government not to replace Trident, saying nuclear weapons were so dangerous they should never be used.

Why should anyone be worried about a nation using nuclear weapons when it never has and isn't threatening to?

The UK has not deployed control equipment requiring codes to be sent before weapons can be used, such as the U.S. Permissive Action Link, which if installed would preclude the possibility that military officers could launch British nuclear weapons without authorisation.

«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.

In addition to US law, there are also international treaties that may restrict how and when nuclear weapons can or can not be used.

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.

The Tehran Research Reactor is used mainly for producing medical radioisotopes, not weapons, but Iran's dogged effort to produce fuel for it sparked the latest international crisis over the nation's nuclear ambitions — and helped motivate the July 2015 nuclear deal to constrain them.

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?

The United States has decided not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear countries as long as they comply with their nonproliferation commitments under different international treaties.

Keep in mind, these are not nuclear weapons and will require faithful use to be the most effective.