Sentences with phrase «use nuclear weapons in»

This answer presumes nuclear powers would use nuclear weapons in the future.

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

«North Korea might use a nuclear weapon in such a way as to make it look like someone else used it.»

After all, they are the only nation to use a nuclear weapon in war.

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.

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

It was the first time a country ever used a nuclear weapon in combat and it instantly killed over 80,000 people.

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.

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.

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 department controls the radioactive materials - plutonium, uranium and tritium - used in Americas nuclear weapons and in the reactors of nuclear - powered aircraft carriers and submarines.

«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.

Policymakers should adopt a more realistic focus on deterring Pyongyang from using its nuclear weapons rather than pursuing low - probability attempts to denuclearize the peninsula in short order.

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?

In 2011, the group complained about an Air Force training presentation that used religion to teach the ethics and morality of using nuclear weapons.

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

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.»

In 1945 Henry L. Stimson, secretary of war, recommended to President Truman the use of nuclear weapons against Japan to hasten the end of the war and save the Allied forces an estimated 1 million casualties in an assault upon mainland JapaIn 1945 Henry L. Stimson, secretary of war, recommended to President Truman the use of nuclear weapons against Japan to hasten the end of the war and save the Allied forces an estimated 1 million casualties in an assault upon mainland Japain an assault upon mainland Japan.

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.

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.

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].

How can we know that any use of nuclear weapons will not result in catastrophic escalation?

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.

Albert Schweitzer consistently refused political involvements and judgments, though he did join in protest against the use of nuclear weapons.

Thus we live now with the fruits of the actions of early industrial capitalism, nuclear weapons used in World War II, the Green Revolution, widespread deforestation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.»

Eighty - one per cent would like to see a step - up in arms - control negotiations with the Soviets, though only 46 per cent regard the use of nuclear weapons as «always morally wrong.»

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?

Let's move ahead I don't see people going to war with bow and arrows those times are gone, the Roman Empire was great using bows and arrows but now it's guns and nuclear weapons but in our case we go to war with sticks and wipes hoping to defeat teams with Guns and nuclear weapons..

The army and navy in all honesty we did not know he held a 3rd dan black belt in sho rea, he had been trained in air born and air assault and nuclear weapons and their security on trident submarines so when somebody attacked him or use a weapon to intimidate him he considered only one option, deadly force had just been authorized.

However, I would like to know in what situation would it be likely for North Korea to actually use nuclear weapons?

«Until recently having or not having nuclear weapons appeared to be and was treated as a question of yes or no», wrote Thomas Schelling in a piece called «Who Will have The Bomb», written in 1976 following India's first use of a «peaceful» nuclear explosive (PNE).

Let's assume that Kim believes that actually using nuclear weapons would result in his destruction.

The scenario in which North Korea could use nuclear weapons is the scenario when they are invaded, for example by US.

So there are zero uses of nuclear weapons that have ever been used in a way that violates the policy that you are calling «no - first - strike» (the North Korean policy).

Up until recently Israel was the only country with nuclear weapons, and they have only ever used them passively, such as when they coerced the U.S. to intervene diplomatically in 1973.

Second, supporting any UN military efforts sets the precedent that such actions could be used on them in the future for such reasons as their nuclear weapons development or severe human rights violations.

Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, subcomponents, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

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.

Dismissing Christian pacifism as useless in the face of totalitarianism, he preferred moral action with muscle (the latter to be used prudently) and even sanctioned the limited use of nuclear weapons, to the dismay of some on the left.

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.

North Korea, a peculiar country that managed to secure generations of totalitarian rule, is, indeed, itself a contradiction: the elite on the top try to make use of nuclear weapons — the technology of modern social invention, to maintain social culture and tradition that has long been lost in other parts of East Asia.

Korea likely sees us for the hypocrites we are, thus, doesn't want to be told by the only people in the history of the world to ever use nuclear weapons, what to do with theirs.

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.

One could also argue that the US would try to avoid using nuclear weapons against North Korea in the case of a retaliation attack in order to prevent larger tensions with Beijing and more risks to South Korea.