Примеры использования Nuclear-weapon powers на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
We want to hold the nuclear-weapon Powers to their solemn pledge.
The Treaty has been signed by 148 countries, including all the nuclear-weapon Powers.
The fact that these nuclear-weapon Powers have opted for a commitment.
Those countries were the third, fourth andeighth largest nuclear-weapon powers in the world.
Nuclear-weapon Powers owe it to the world to answer the question why they need nuclear weapons.
Regrettably, such restraint has not yet been demonstrated by some of the nuclear-weapon Powers.
As a country uniquely positioned between the two nuclear-weapon Powers, Mongolia attaches exceptional importance to this issue.
Today there are no clear legal assurances to nonnuclear States by nuclear-weapon Powers.
It is imperative that 1996,the date to which all nuclear-weapon Powers have committed themselves, will witness the actual conclusion of the treaty.
It is argued that the task of nuclear disarmament is the prerogative of the nuclear-weapon Powers.
Our vote, however, is accompanied by the firm expectation that the nuclear-weapon Powers will fully honour all their promises concerning article VI of the Treaty.
Shortly afterwards, Kazakhstan is given similar assurances by France and China, the two other nuclear-weapon Powers.
Now especially, with the largest nuclear-weapon Powers finally able to de-emphasize nuclear weapons in their defence planning, this is no time to revert to old habits.
With the same emphasis, we urge the speedy fulfilment of the commitments undertaken by the nuclear-weapon Powers under article VI of the NPT.
If the five nuclear-weapon powers would adopt safer postures of this kind, the argument that India and Pakistan should refrain from putting warheads on their delivery vehicles would become a strong and consistent one.
Instead, the period had seen the emergence of two more or less declared nuclear-weapon Powers in South Asia.
In order to achieve this objective, it is imperative that the nuclear-weapon Powers fulfil their unequivocal commitment to eliminate their entire nuclear arsenals, which pose a serious threat to human survival.
I would like once again to recall the proposals of the Russian President to ensure that nuclear arsenals are stationed only on the territory of nuclear-weapon Powers.
We welcome the positive developments to that end, andthe contributions of major nuclear-weapon Powers, including, and in particular, the United States.
Such an agreement would presumably necessitate arrangements whereby all nuclear-weapon Powers would place weapons materials released in the process of destroying nuclear weapons under IAEA international controls.
Accordingly, nuclear deterrence has lost whatever value its proponents claimed for it andthe massive nuclear arsenals of the major nuclear-weapon Powers make very little sense today.
Security assurances were also contained in unilateral statements made by the nuclear-weapon powers in connection with the 1978 and 1982 Special Sessions of the UN General Assembly devoted to disarmament.
With regard to successes in the field of nuclear disarmament, he noted the decision by the Conference on Disarmament to start discussions on a comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty. In that connection, he expressed the hope that,prior to the talks, the nuclear-weapon Powers would refrain from nuclear-weapons testing.
It is unrealistic because it disregards the facts, especially the considerable bilateral andunilateral efforts made by nuclear-weapon Powers in the context of their commitments under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons NPT.
We would like to urge the members of the Conference on Disarmament, especially the nuclear-weapon Powers, seriously to consider in future negotiations the programme of action for the elimination of nuclear weapons jointly submitted by 28 non-aligned and neutral States members of the Conference on Disarmament.
In the same vein, Tanzania is concerned by the emerging signs of mistrust andcompetition among big nuclear-weapon Powers, reminiscent of the situation during the cold war.
Despite the discussions on how to begin negotiations for Strategic Arms Reduction(START) III,the lack of formal negotiations between the two major nuclear-weapon Powers on further reductions in strategic nuclear weapons did not augur well for sustaining the basic bargain of article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons between nuclear-weapon and non-nuclear-weapon States.
It is understandable why the vows to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons coming from the main nuclear-weapon Powers were received with widespread joy and renewed hope.
On the other hand,the fact that the negotiation of this treaty counts with the active involvement and support of all nuclear-weapon Powers can be interpreted as an indication of their interest in joining it.
Non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the NPT have committed themselves to not developing oracquiring nuclear weapons in return for a commitment by nuclear-weapon Powers to negotiate in good faith to achieve nuclear disarmament.