Sentences with phrase «of nuclear»

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

Thus considered, the fact of the release of nuclear energy, overwhelming and intoxicating though it was, began to seem less tremendous.

Global warming, the ozone hole, overpopulation, starvation and malnutrition, war, unemployment, the destruction of species and the rain forests, pollution of water and air, pesticide and herbicide poisoning, errors in genetic engineering, erosion of topsoil, overfishing, anarchy and crime, the possibility of a nuclear mishap, chemical warfare or all - out nuclear war: together, or in some cases singly, these dangers threaten to «catch us unexpectedly, like a trap.»

«Nothing can save us that is possible,» the poet W H. Auden intoned over the madness of the nuclear crisis; «we who must die demand a miracle.»

But this historical dynamism has brought with it the idea of conquest and the consequent results in absolutisation of State power, world wars and threat of nuclear holocaust quite unknown to traditional societies.

Because of its awesome destructive potential, the problem of nuclear arms occupies an especially prominent place in liberal civil religion.

The first of these is the issue of nuclear weapons.

In my view, there are at least six key factors which have caused and continue to affect a global transformation of consciousness: the revolution in communications, globalization of the economy, a growing awareness of the degradation of the environment, demographic shifts, the threat of nuclear destruction and the advent of the new science.

At the Honolulu Conference, where Doi was honored for his leadership in dialogue, he spoke of the growing threat of nuclear warfare, pleading that this development alone makes it imperative for Buddhists and Christians to come together in mutual understanding.

Since the traditional family was for decades the dominant form of the nuclear family, the two concepts get confused in people's minds.

The idea of the nuclear family, on the other hand, refers to a bonded mother and father raising one or more children.

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

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.

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.

The analyses applied to the Vietnam war or the problems of nuclear deterrence are ill suited to illuminate the contemporary scene.

The issue of nuclear weapons dominated the 1950s and a good part of the «60s.

Analyses applied to the Vietnam war or the problems of nuclear deterrence are ill suited to illuminate our current problems.

After the Cuban missile crisis, the point at which the world came close to a nuclear exchange, the doctrine was that the horror of nuclear war was the best guarantee that there would be no nuclear war.

Indeed, our cold war with the Russians, with whom we wrestle on the edge of the abyss of a nuclear catastrophe, must be solved spiritually, but by what specific political methods?

Other branches, such as Seventh - day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and more exotic groups like (but not including) the now - infamous Branch Davidians, receive only passing attention, as do secular doomsday warnings of nuclear holocaust and environmental destruction.

Breathless predictions that the Islamic Republic will soon be at the brink of nuclear capability, or — worse — acquire an actual nuclear bomb, are not new.

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.

Eisenhower, says Gaddis, was «at once the most subtle and brutal strategist of the nuclear age.»

They will be momentarily awakened by the next attack, and may be wide awake if they are not among the victims of a nuclear or biochemical attack in a major metropolitan area.

While neither is overly occupied with the policy concerns of the larger environmental movement ¯ global climate, carbon capture, alternative energy, the future of nuclear power, and so on ¯ they help illuminate a common narrative that places nature above human need.

«It was,» writes Gaddis, «as if Eisenhower was in denial: that a kind of nuclear autism had set in, in which he refused to listen to the advice he got from the best minds available.»

This challenge is an intensification of the question that has been around since at least the advent of nuclear weapons, namely, «Can modern war be just?»

The discoveries and scientific creations of recent years in the field of nuclear energy, transforming our period into a new power age, are directly traceable to the discoveries of radioactive elements by Becquerel and the Curies, inaugurating the new physics.9 A new depth of relations and energy revealed in both earlier and more recent experiments has routed the world - view of mechanism which Newton and his followers through the nineteenth century had come to take for granted.

They concede that even their conditional acceptance of nuclear deterrence may reinforce a policy of arms buildup, and they know that historically deterrence has not «set in motion substantial processes of disarmament.»

I do not think that a person can have a role in the wartime firing of a nuclear device, or even in the development or production of a destabilizing weapon, as an agonized participant.

Christian fundamentalists have been strong supporters of family values, the preservation of the nuclear family, the prohibition of sex outside of marriage.

While defense contractors say that there is no moral or religious dilemma for their employees, church leaders say that there is a problem, but one that can be solved by refusing to participate in the development or production of nuclear weapons and technology.

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.

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.»

While repudiating the notion that nuclear war in any circumstance can be a just war, the bishops say that they will tolerate for now the possession of nuclear weapons as long as serious efforts are made toward arms control.

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.

With their gross generalizations about nuclear weaponry, the churches seem to have contracted a severe case of nuclear «theology» which conveniently shields them from the ambiguities and complexities of the nuclear weapons debate.

The irrationality of nuclear weapons is greater than that of the old knives and cannon.

But hoping and peacemaking, we must see, are very different things from indulging in one form or another of nuclear escapism.

It is correct to say, as Robert McAfee Brown does, that the possession and manufacture of nuclear weapons are immoral.

By refusing to admit the metaphor of governor into his discussion, Meeks relieves himself of the obligation even to consider seriously this line of argument and the attendant possibility that some form of nuclear deterrence might be acknowledged as a morally acceptable lesser evil.

Because cnn and fox aren't reporting how one of the reactor cores liquified 100 % - something never seen in the history of nuclear power.

We did not emphasize then, as we would now, the idea that the escalation of the destructiveness of the means used, as in the case of nuclear war, would make a war unjust.

In the past 40 years destructive power and the chances of a nuclear accident or of uncontrolled escalation have increased immeasurably.

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

Yes it does, and President Bachmann will destroy all of our enemies in a firestorm of nuclear devastation.

We have also become aware that the anthropocentrism that characterizes much of the Judeo - Christian tradition has often fed a sensibility insensitive to our proper place in the universe.2 The ecological crisis, epitomized in the possibility of a nuclear holocaust, has brought home to many the need for a new mode of consciousness on the part of human beings, for what Rosemary Ruether calls a «conversion» to the earth, a cosmocentric sensibility (Ruether, 89).3

I have read and signed, many years ago, a code of ethics as an employee of NBPower and I am sure that if I did blog of horrible wrong doing of my employer and my disabelief of NBPower's use of nuclear power I would be told to stop or risk my future employement.

You know and accept that they are balls of plasma / gas and burning because of nuclear fusion..

And we will always have this knowledge — regardless of nuclear disarmament.