Sentences with phrase «nuclear weapons state in»

Unilateral nuclear disarmament would leave France as the sole nuclear weapons state in Europe, inflating Paris's role in the north Atlantic alliance and hastening the demise of the Anglo - American special relationship.

In this scheme, both ends of the fuel cycle are handled by a small group of countries, mainly the nuclear weapons states in the original proposal.

Not exact matches

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Sunday he told Kim during their secret meeting at the beginning of April that North Korea would have to agree to take «irreversible» steps toward shutting its nuclear weapons program in any deal with the United States.

Citing a website called EurActiv, the story cautions, «The movement of the United States to bring nuclear weapons in Romania could create new tensions with Russia.»

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.

The U.S Navy base Kitsap - Bangor has the greatest concentration of nuclear weapons in the United States.

Trump on Tuesday hosted a discussion on options to respond to any North Korean aggression or if necessary to prevent Pyongyang from threatening the United States and its allies with nuclear weapons, the White House said in a statement.

These facts are consistent with what the United States has long known: Iran had a robust, clandestine nuclear weapons program that it has tried and failed to hide from the world and from its own people,» the White House said in a statement.

Because enriched uranium is a component of nuclear weapons, the deal required a national security review by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States.

In... Israel's claim that Iran lied to the world about plans to build a nuclear weapon has been endorsed by Mike Pompeo, the US secretary of state.

North Korea's state media on Saturday trumpeted leader Kim Jong Un's «immortal achievement» a day after he met South Korean President Moon Jae - in and repeated past vows to remove nuclear weapons from the peninsula and work toward a formal end to the...

China may implement tougher sanctions in response to North Korea's nuclear weapon development, which is testing the warming relationship between the United States and China.

As part of his «State of the World» address, Pope Francis asked world leaders to stand up for more conversations toward peace in Korea and an enforced ban on nuclear weapons.

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 worlIn 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 worlin this they concurred with a wide range of opponents of nuclear weapons around the world.

Eighteen top German physicists, including four Nobel prize winners, stated in 1957 that they would not work on projects having any connection with nuclear weapons.

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.

By contrast, the National Security Strategy paper speaks not of permanent superiority but of leadership, calls for a secure presence in space but not control of it (or cyberspace), implies the possibility of regime changes without stating it explicitly, and does not mention developing smaller nuclear weapons.

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.

Increasingly, our understanding of reality is one - dimensional, even within the church; our quest for fulfillment seeks satisfaction through greater consumption; our security rests in nuclear weapons, and our blindness and idolatry are visible in our stated willingness to blow up the world, if need be, to preserve our way of life.

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

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.

Are the terrorists the United States is fighting today interested in nuclear weapons?

But we should not be too cynical: the Nuclear Summit was indeed a success for some participating states as it fell prey to political manipulation political manipulation by states seeking a platform to prove either their eligibility and need for nuclear trade (as Pakistan did); or to prove that they are responsible nuclear states (as India, South Korea and many others did); or that they can provide adequate nuclear security in order to uphold the rights of all nations to peaceful nuclear trade (as the P5 and recognized nuclear weapon states seemed to haveNuclear Summit was indeed a success for some participating states as it fell prey to political manipulation political manipulation by states seeking a platform to prove either their eligibility and need for nuclear trade (as Pakistan did); or to prove that they are responsible nuclear states (as India, South Korea and many others did); or that they can provide adequate nuclear security in order to uphold the rights of all nations to peaceful nuclear trade (as the P5 and recognized nuclear weapon states seemed to havenuclear trade (as Pakistan did); or to prove that they are responsible nuclear states (as India, South Korea and many others did); or that they can provide adequate nuclear security in order to uphold the rights of all nations to peaceful nuclear trade (as the P5 and recognized nuclear weapon states seemed to havenuclear states (as India, South Korea and many others did); or that they can provide adequate nuclear security in order to uphold the rights of all nations to peaceful nuclear trade (as the P5 and recognized nuclear weapon states seemed to havenuclear security in order to uphold the rights of all nations to peaceful nuclear trade (as the P5 and recognized nuclear weapon states seemed to havenuclear trade (as the P5 and recognized nuclear weapon states seemed to havenuclear weapon states seemed to have done).

In my view, the Nuclear Summit has only further legitimized the existence of a reality that will be dominated by nuclear power and energy, thus reinforcing an existing status - quo and sidelining what I believe is one of the most important issues to be addressed: the need for complete nuclear disarmament by nuclear weapon Nuclear Summit has only further legitimized the existence of a reality that will be dominated by nuclear power and energy, thus reinforcing an existing status - quo and sidelining what I believe is one of the most important issues to be addressed: the need for complete nuclear disarmament by nuclear weapon nuclear power and energy, thus reinforcing an existing status - quo and sidelining what I believe is one of the most important issues to be addressed: the need for complete nuclear disarmament by nuclear weapon nuclear disarmament by nuclear weapon nuclear weapon states.

The collapse of a tunnel containing radioactive waste at the Hanford nuclear weapons complex in Washington State underscored what critics have long been saying: The toxic remnants of the Cold War are being stored in haphazard and unsafe conditions, and time is running out to deal with the problem.

In late March of this year, a majority of the world's states will meet at the United Nations headquarters in New York City to start negotiations on a nuclear weapons prohibition treatIn late March of this year, a majority of the world's states will meet at the United Nations headquarters in New York City to start negotiations on a nuclear weapons prohibition treatin New York City to start negotiations on a nuclear weapons prohibition treaty.

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.

North Korean officials have mentioned that they may «exercise restraint in the testing of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons if the United States and South Korea adjusted the exercises to make them less threatening».

So, in November 2016, in private discussions with American experts, including one of the authors, North Korean officials hinted they might be willing to exercise restraint in the testing of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons if the United States and South Korea adjusted the exercises to make them less threatening.

The governments of Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, and Spain support Britain in its opposition to making nuclear weapons illegal, as do Australia, Canada, and the United States.

In Nevada, however, there is bipartisan opposition to the Yucca project, and the state's congressional delegation prepared a series of amendments meant to ensure that the House would consider key safety provisions for the project, which is located about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas and adjacent to the land where the government tested nuclear weapons.

... the non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear - weapon states in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals.

All the scenarios where we could really need nuclear weapons are — as the government's strategic review states — pretty unforeseeable in the short to medium term.

America's extended nuclear umbrella had seemed viable in the early post-war years when the United States maintained overwhelming superiority in these weapons, but grew increasingly questionable as Soviet gains in nuclear and missile technology ushered in the era of superpower parity and «mutually assured destruction».

This unhappy state of affairs is in stark contrast to the debate over Britain's nuclear weapons capability.

But when one state in a dispute has nuclear weapons and the other does not, the nuclear power can always threaten escalation to a point where its opponent has no defence.

US President Donald Trump has called North Korean leader Kim Jong - Un «rocket man» in front of the United Nations, labelled him crazy and insane, and stated he was willing to halt Kim's pursuit of nuclear weapons by all means, while North Korea labelled Trump a «dotard.»

Concern was also expressed at the 2010 Conference about the lack of progress made in the Middle East and it was decided that a conference should be convened in 2012 - to be attended by all States of the Middle East — «on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction.»

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.

Possession of nuclear weapons could be seen as the ultimate bargaining tool in international diplomacy, instantly giving any nuclear state a seat at the top table.

«It is perfectly legitimate for the United States to respond to the current «necessity» posed by North Korea's nuclear weapons by striking first,» he argued in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece last month.

He pledged the Tory government would never abandon Britain's nuclear deterrent, saying doing so would be «indefensible» in a world of rogue states developing nuclear weapons.

The United States has a two - man rule in place, and while only the president can order the release of nuclear weapons, the order must be confirmed by the Secretary of Defense (there is a hierarchy of succession in the event that the president is killed in an attack).

So unless your terrorists are on the territory of a signatory nuclear state (US, Russia, China, the UK, France), a non-signatory state (India, South Sudan, Pakistan, Israel) or a state that has acquired nuclear weapons in contravention of the Treaty (North Korea), it's probably illegal to nuke them.

[128] In 1962 it stated that the forthcoming Chinese nuclear weapon was a reason for having more than one Western nuclear nation.

[125] The Economist, the New Statesman, and many left - wing newspapers supported the reliance on nuclear deterrence and nuclear weapons, but in their view considered that of the United States would suffice, and that of the costs of the «nuclear umbrella» was best left to be borne by the United States alone.

Given the devastating consequences inherent in the use of the UK's current nuclear weapons, we are of the view that the proportionality test is unlikely to be met except where there is a threat to the very survival of the state.

«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.»

Mr. Faso, a thirty - plus - year - resident of Kinderhook, NY — Prof. Teachout moved to the district from New York City in January to run for the NY19 seat — strongly opposed the Obama Iran Nuclear Deal, saying that it gave billions of dollars to one one of the world's biggest sponsors of terrorism, virtually guarantees that Iran will get nuclear weapons, and poses an existential threat to the State of Nuclear Deal, saying that it gave billions of dollars to one one of the world's biggest sponsors of terrorism, virtually guarantees that Iran will get nuclear weapons, and poses an existential threat to the State of nuclear weapons, and poses an existential threat to the State of Israel.