Sentences with phrase «nuclear weapons being used»

Citing current tension from the North Korean administration, Reiss - Andersen added: «We live in a world where the risk of nuclear weapons being used is greater than it has been for a long time.»

Speaking on Sunday, Fihn said the risk of nuclear weapons being used was now greater than during the Cold War.

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.

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.

ICAN, which is a coalition of smaller organizations, has long campaigned for a treaty that would ban the use of nuclear weapons.

Both South Korea and Taiwan have advanced civilian nuclear programs and technical knowledge that could be used for a weapons program.

Deployed nuclear weapons are attached to a delivery system and ready to use.

If North Korea's used a nuclear weapon, its deterrent capability would be gone.

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.»

It uses tons of archival nuclear weapons footage — roughly a third of which the public has never seen before — overlaid with Cold War - era documents that are brought to life with eye - catching animation.

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.

That is, Pyongyang will «launch a lengthy, complicated negotiation to get agreement on actions each party must take, and use this process to buy time for the development of the North's nuclear weapons program.»

The intended payload for North Korea's ICBM program is a nuclear warhead (although chemical weapons like VX nerve agent, which the nation allegedly possesses and has used, are another option).

«I want to tell all those who have fueled the arms race over the last 15 years, sought to win unilateral advantages over Russia, introduced unlawful sanctions aimed to contain our country's development... you have failed to contain Russia,» Putin said, later adding that «any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies... any kind of attack... will be regarded as a nuclear attack against Russia and in response we will take action instantaneously no matter what the consequences are.

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

However, using the NIV translation (probably most inaccurate english translation), replacing «holy covenant» with UN, «western coastlands» or «Kittim» with U.S. and «abomination that causes desolation» with nuclear weapons, it's easy to see how The End could be sooner rather than later.

If Iran can get hold of a nuclear weapon, they are going to use it for sure against Israel, no matter how much consequences they might suffer.

«I pray that he'll be a good president and that he'll keep our country at peace — that he'll refrain from using nuclear weapons, and that he will promote human rights.»

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

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?

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?

In fact, according to a statement read on August 9, 2005, at a meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, he issued a fatwa declaring that «the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons.»

so if you mean that irene is a punishment for the bad folks, then it's like using a nuclear weapon to hit a taliban jeep.

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

And if it is wrong to use nuclear weapons and wrong to possess them, it must also be wrong to manufacture them, since manufacturing inevitably means possession, and possession almost inevitably means use [August 15 - 22, 1984].

No one can use nuclear weapons the world is a zoo.

At its 1983 Vancouver Assembly the World Council of Churches adopted a report that announces: We believe that the time has come when the churches must unequivocally declare that the production and deployment as well as the use of nuclear weapons are a crime against humanity and that such activities must be condemned on ethical and theological grounds.»

Behind this statement is a conviction that nor only the use but also the development and manufacture of nuclear weapons is contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

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.

We believe that the time has come when the churches must unequivocally declare that the production and deployment as well as the use of nuclear weapons are a crime against humanity and that such activities must be condemned on ethical and theological grounds.

For example, the bishops maintain that the first use of even the smallest counterforce nuclear weapons is always wrong, but they recognize that others within the church community might come to a different conclusion.

In the immediate context of The Challenge of Peace this conviction was focused specifically on the question of nuclear weapons and whether they might ever be morally used; the United States bishops» answer was No, and in this they concurred with a wide range of opponents of nuclear weapons around the world.

And we are all frightened at the prospect of the use of nuclear weapons by terrorists against innocent civilian populations.

And if it is wrong to use nuclear weapons and wrong to possess them, it must also be wrong to manufacture them, since manufacture inevitably means possession, and possession almost inevitably means use.

Nuclear deterrence is morally unacceptable because it relies on the credibility of the intention to use nuclear weapons: we believe that any intention to use weapons of mass destruction is an utterly inhuman violation of the mind and spirit of Christ which should be in us... [David Gill, editor, Gathered for Life (Eerdmans, l984), Nuclear deterrence is morally unacceptable because it relies on the credibility of the intention to use nuclear weapons: we believe that any intention to use weapons of mass destruction is an utterly inhuman violation of the mind and spirit of Christ which should be in us... [David Gill, editor, Gathered for Life (Eerdmans, l984), nuclear weapons: we believe that any intention to use weapons of mass destruction is an utterly inhuman violation of the mind and spirit of Christ which should be in us... [David Gill, editor, Gathered for Life (Eerdmans, l984), p. 75].

Even if the use of nuclear warheads were avoided, the outbreak of an international conflict using more conventional but highly sophisticated weapons remains possible.

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.

Crossan thinks this message of nonviolence is so urgent because now we have nuclear weapons, and he suggests that some fool fundamentalist will use these nukes to bring about the Apocalypse.

'» The technical discussions as to when or whether nuclear weapons can be used without violating just war criteria are irrelevant unless the question of escalation can be answered with certainty.

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.

The dilemma is easily stated: The non-Communist world needs nuclear power to deter Communist nuclear power (to prevent nuclear blackmail and pressure in the interests of Communist expansion); but if we ever use our nuclear weapons, they are likely to destroy all that they defend as deterrents.

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.

(1) There are tens of thousands of nuclear weapons stockpiled, with over 7,000 actually targeted and ready for instant use.

Plutonium technologies are judged a particularly unacceptable risk because of the extreme toxicity of plutonium, its capability for use in nuclear weapons, and the unusual safeguards necessary for its security and error - free use.

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

That voters would pick someone to over see our nuclear weapons and be in charge of our military that has suspended their ability to fully use logic and reason.

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?

But the dominant system tries to neutralise these fears using a «non-proliferation treaty» of nuclear weapons which imposes what some call nuclear apartheid, that is to say, giving certain countries the right (the five of the Security Council, but also Israel) to hold such arms.