Sentences with phrase «of nuclear weapons because»

In the universal network we can not accept the presence of nuclear weapons because even a small change can trigger it.

We know this because the US hasn't invaded North Korea to prevent the development of nuclear weapons because of the more conventional threat to Seoul.

Not exact matches

Introducing nuclear weapons into this process forces a nation to move with caution because the risk of massive retaliation is great.

Legge also pointed out that spending substantial amounts of money on one weapon might not be justified, because if the Soviet tanks got as far as Calais «without a strategic nuclear exchange having occurred, then I think the Channel Tunnel will be an irrelevance.»

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.

As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, a war with North Korea is the markets» biggest geopolitical black swan, because it would likely be cataclysmic, with hundreds of thousands dead, the world's fifth - largest metro area, Seoul, suffering massive destruction, and perhaps even nuclear or chemical weapons unleashed on Japan or U.S. bases in the region.

The risk of an inadvertent nuclear war is rising because of the entanglement of non-nuclear weapons with nuclear weapons and their command - and - control capabilities.

So we Christians do not oppose nuclear weapons because they threaten to destroy «mother earth,» but because the God we serve would not have one life unjustly taken even if such a killing would insure the survival of the human species.

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'm saying this first because Wolfe doesn't say it and because Obama (contrary to the sagacious advice of Gates) doesn't even see that modernizing our nuclear weapons is the best way to save lives and liberty.

It ought to come as a surprise to no one, therefore, that from the time of the first splitting of the atom down through the destruction of Hiroshima and on to current controversies about nuclear weapons and power plants, Christian people have been involved individually and corporately at every level of the debate, not incidentally but specifically because of their Christian commitment.

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].

I put Ron Paul to the side because, even if the Republicans do someday nominate a gold standard supporter who wants sharp defense cuts, but it won't be this year, won't be someone who thinks he wants to zero out nuclear weapons production, and military nuclear propulsion production, transportation, and testing, and it won't be a ex-publisher of racist newsletters who can't fully come clean.

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.

They best just bow down because America will turn that country into a hellish lava pit with the detonation of Nuclear weapons... Pakistan is a disgrace because they will stab you in the back.

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.

«Nuclear war is rejected in Church teaching because nuclear weapons can not ensure noncombatant immunity and their awesome destructive power and lingering radiation can not be meaningfully proportionate,» he said, citing Pope Benedict XVI's 2006 World Day of Peace message, in which the pope said, «In a nuclear war, there would be no victors, only victims.Nuclear war is rejected in Church teaching because nuclear weapons can not ensure noncombatant immunity and their awesome destructive power and lingering radiation can not be meaningfully proportionate,» he said, citing Pope Benedict XVI's 2006 World Day of Peace message, in which the pope said, «In a nuclear war, there would be no victors, only victims.nuclear weapons can not ensure noncombatant immunity and their awesome destructive power and lingering radiation can not be meaningfully proportionate,» he said, citing Pope Benedict XVI's 2006 World Day of Peace message, in which the pope said, «In a nuclear war, there would be no victors, only victims.nuclear war, there would be no victors, only victims.»

That may mean losing a job because we will not participate in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

Wigg - Stevenson insists that all nuclear weapons are «un-justifiable» and sinful because they are categorically indiscriminate and therefore fail the jus en bello requirement of noncombatant immunity.

But when world leaders with nuclear weapons, as an extreme example, make serious global decisions because they believe their mythology to be history and their intuition to be the voice of the invisible man in the sky directing their actions — that makes me terrified!

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?

As such the breakout time to a nuclear weapon, which is supposedly increased to a year because of this agreement, could actually continue to decrease and the international community would not know it until it is too late.

I don't think that argument holds merit because Japan at the time of its unconditional surrender had already been bombed twice by nuclear weapons.

The couple you mention were executed because the sketches they sent were of nuclear weapon designs.

An independent Scotland can not be a nuclear weapon state, because of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) onuclear weapon state, because of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) oNuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1970.

Because they offer a means of killing lots of people (soldiers or civilians) to countries who can not possess nuclear weapons.

More bizarrely a group called Labour First claims that conference can not discuss nuclear weapons again until 2019 because of the «three - year rule».

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.

Regardless of whether this is true or not, is there any objective reason why the US, UK, France, and others are «allowed» to have nuclear weapons, and others can not, or is the only reason because they are either western allies or too powerful for the US to subjugate?

A policy of deterrence is useless against terrorists, and is less useful against «rogue states» such as Iran and North Korea, both of which are believed to possess nuclear weapons, because their motivations are not easily understood.

So if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons putting them in a position of undeserved authority, then all the Arab countries in the region would recognize this as a direct threat - not simply because Iran would bomb them but because it could help them support their local enemies and put pressure them.

I voted against the deal in 2015 because it did nothing to prevent Iran's development of missiles, nor would it permanently end its nuclear weapons program.

Despite international efforts, there was «no realistic prospect of a world without nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future», Mr Browne said, adding that no such weapons had been used in 50 years because, in part, countries like Britain had a deterrent.

Therefore, the US can nuke an SLBM launch platform (i.e., an enemy nuclear submarine carrying missiles) without it being a weapon of mass destruction because it's used against a military target.

In the 1950s, deuterium was used in thermonuclear weapons because nuclear fusion of deuterium atoms (or of deuterium and the heavier hydrogen isotope, tritium) releases tremendous energy.

In that position, Grover had noticed a communications breakdown, specifically because the secure nature of the lab's nuclear weapons work meant that employees were unable to have cell phones in their offices.

Many scientists and environmentalists warn that the government's present strategy of simply storing the plutonium could do more harm than good because it does nothing to reduce the risk of environmental disaster, and, rather than discourage other countries from developing nuclear weapons, it could provoke them to increase their efforts.

For nearly 2 decades, NNSA has supported the construction and operation of NIF because ICF's miniature explosions can aid weapons scientists who are trying to maintain the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.

Normally, radiocarbon dates have error ranges of several centuries, but the researchers could improve the estimates because the smallest sharks measured showed the «bomb pulse» — a huge increase in global radiocarbon released from the hundreds of nuclear weapons tested in the 1950s and»60s.

The Obama administration has called on all nations to minimize the amount of plutonium possessed because it could be converted for use in nuclear weapons.

When you're facing the imminent arrival of an asteroid which will hit the Earth with the force of «10,000 nuclear weapons» you're going to have to look at seriously modifying your workout because your usual pilates and hot yoga session just isn't going to cut it.

Health practitioners over the past few decades have also begun seeing more and people «glowing in the dark» because of nuclear waste and weapons.

It was developed during the Cold War because the President launching nuclear weapons based on an electronically noisy signal which could be false is a devil of a gamble.

Unfortunately, because of Paz's meddling, an international agency learns that you have a nuclear weapon and wants to inspect your facilities.

In a ranking of near - term «fatal discontinuities» in his 2008 book, «Global Catastrophes and Trends: The Next Fifty Years,» Vaclav Smil puts asteroid collisions far below the persistent risk of large - scale war (particularly because so many nuclear weapons are still arrayed around the world), great earthquakes and tsunamis and pandemics, but above global warming (because of its gradual slope).

People are fearful of nuclear energy because they first learnt of it through nuclear weapons.

He negotiated the Limited Test Ban Treaty with the Soviets which he was unable to sign because Francis Gary Powers was shot down and the Soviets grandstanded for several months before getting to the banning of atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons.

Thankfully, a big part of the problem with the Chernobyl explosion was horrible communist management and serious reactor design flaws (partly because they needed access to the core to get plutonium for nuclear weapons, as far as I know).

Oak Ridge is known as the «Atomic City,» because of the role it played in developing the world's first nuclear weapon.

All states had a stake in the negotiations because of the trans - border nature of the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.