Sentences with phrase «use nuclear weapons if»

«I think the best bet is that they would use nuclear weapons if they felt the regime was threatened in a serious way,» Wit said.

Shadow defence secretary and frontbench colleagues attack Labour leader for saying he would never use nuclear weapons if prime minister

But the six - hour debate, in which Mrs May said she would use nuclear weapons if pushed, split Labour MPs three ways and sparked extraordinary scenes of open civil war between them.

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.

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

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.

What if, someone in the government decides that it would save lives and shorten the war if we used nuclear weapons again?

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?

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.

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].

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

After all, even according to Waltz's own theory, Israel would never use its nuclear weapons against Iran even if Hezbollah or any of Iran's other allies repeatedly attacked it.

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.

The ban treaty, if it is adopted, will most likely be made up of a relatively short text declaring the use, possession, and transfer of nuclear weapons unlawful.

It is generally acknowledged that if North Korea did use nuclear weapons on the US, the US would then destroy it.

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.

But if Russia were to use nuclear weapons against NATO troops then there would be many countries who would be willing at that point to use them against Russia in retaliatory strikes.

If everyone got rid of their nuclear weapons would be that any state could secretly build nuclear weapons use them to bully other states around.

During a public meeting the Republican candidate was asked if he could rule out the use of nuclear weapons in Europe.

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.

I would like to gain more information about what would happen if someone did use nuclear weapons.

However, I must disagree with abelenky slightly — I believe there is one case where using a nuclear weapon on terrorists makes sense: If the objective is to destroy a bioweapon.

Even if Britain were to come under nuclear attack itself, only 55 % would support using nuclear weapons in response.

Asked if he would use nuclear weapons, he said: «No.»

Sir Paul Kenny, the general secretary of the GMB union, suggested that Corbyn might have to resign as prime minister if he declined to authorise the use of nuclear weapons.

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organisation, which watches out for nuclear weapons tests worldwide, looked at its data for the last few days to see if its infrasound — below the range of human hearing — recordings, normally used to seek out the muffled crump of underground tests, contained any signature of an aircraft expNuclear Test Ban Treaty Organisation, which watches out for nuclear weapons tests worldwide, looked at its data for the last few days to see if its infrasound — below the range of human hearing — recordings, normally used to seek out the muffled crump of underground tests, contained any signature of an aircraft expnuclear weapons tests worldwide, looked at its data for the last few days to see if its infrasound — below the range of human hearing — recordings, normally used to seek out the muffled crump of underground tests, contained any signature of an aircraft explosion.

And one of the founders of that company, who used to be a nuclear physicist working on weapons, and now makes cartoons, actually took his doctorate with Louis de Broglie, and if that name means something to you, then you'll know how knocked out of my socks I was when I heard that.

However if we're that worried about wiping out a lot of coastal cities with sea level rise then perhaps we should think about sacrificing a desert somewhere and instead of dismantling so many nuclear weapons we use them to put enough dust into the stratosphere to cool the planet down.

Dangerous nuclear weapons proliferation increasing the chance of nuclear war if reactors are used to produce weapons; 2.

We know that if North Korea has a nuclear weapon, they're probably not going to use it.

If there's a more truly evil way to use a nuclear weapon than other use, setting it off underwater is that.