Примеры использования To use such weapons на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
She urged the Government therefore never to use such weapons.
The need to use such weapons was currently being evaluated.
In addition, conspiracies, attempts, or threats to use such weapons are also proscribed.
China had solemnly declared, on the very day in 1964 when it had come intopossession of nuclear weapons, that it would never be the first to use such weapons.
If the current main users of cluster munitions intended to continue to use such weapons, they bore sole responsibility for that.
Pending attainment of the final objective of nuclear disarmament, the nuclear-weapon States must provide unequivocal andlegally binding guarantees not to use or threaten to use such weapons.
It's rather disgusting and shameful, andeven more shameful is to use or threaten to use such weapons, which is not even comparable to any crime committed throughout history.
Some nuclear Powers still refuse to undertake not to be the first to use such weapons.
But in a two-hour news conference,he strongly implied that Iraq had the right to use such weapons… against warring Iranians and Kurdish rebels." The Washington Post of 16 September 1988.
Is it conceivable that international peace and security would be served if the nuclear-weapon States continue to maintain the right to use or threaten to use such weapons against each other?
We draw the attention of the international community to the fact that the United States was the first country in the world to use such weapons and that it has deployed munitions containing depleted uranium that have had appalling human and environmental consequences for my country.
In 1998, the United Kingdom affirmed that it would only maintain one nuclear weapon system- SLBMs- andthat it would lower operational readiness to use such weapons from days or weeks to months.
All nuclear-weapon States should undertake not to be the first to use such weapons under any circumstances, not to use or threaten to use them against non-nuclear-weapon States or in nuclear-weapon-free zones, and to conclude a legally binding international instrument at an early date.
In its latest Nuclear Posture Review,a certain nuclear-weapon State has threatened to use such weapons against some NPT members.
By indefinitely extending the NPT, we neither authorize the nuclear-weapon States to be the sole possessors of nuclear weapons indefinitely, nordid we concede that they have a right to use such weapons.
In the present circumstances, it is essential to ensure that nuclear-weapon States undertake not to use nuclear weapons andundertake unconditionally not to use or threaten to use such weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States, with a viewto the conclusion of the relevant legal instruments.
The world is witness to the fact that the Islamic Republic of Iran, because of its humanitarian principles-- even during the most trying of times and when it was sustaining the highest number of casualties-- never allowed itself to use such weapons.
Those States should sign a binding international instrument with a commitment to not use or threaten to use such weapons against countries that did not possess them.
In this context,Cuba believes it is essential that nuclear-weapon States offer unconditional guarantees to all States in such zones not to use or threaten to use such weapons on them.
As for the so-called negative security assurances,these commit nuclear-weapon States not to use or threaten to use such weapons against States which do not possess them.
A legally binding international instrument should be concluded with a view to providing non-nuclear-weapon States with unconditional assurances that nuclear-weapon States shall not use or threaten to use such weapons against them.
Agreement must be reached on the need to formulate a binding international legal instrument in order to provide non-nuclear-weapon States with guarantees that nuclear-weapon States will not use or threaten to use such weapons against them, and in order to identify the means whereby progress may be made towards that aim.
In conclusion, my delegation believes that the non-nuclear-weapon States that are parties to the NPT have a legitimate right to secure a legally binding commitment from the nuclearweapon States not to use or to threaten to use such weapons against them.
It is important to recall that, in the early 1980s, all five nuclear-weapon States, in response to the international demand for a treaty on negative securityassurances against nuclear weapons, undertook not to use such weapons against States parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and those which renounce the production and acquisition of such weapons. .
Identify as a legitimate interest of non-nuclear-weapon States, which includes all CELAC Member States, the unequivocal andlegally binding assurance by nuclear weapon States against the use or threat to use such weapons.
Firstly, reducing the role and threat of nuclear weapons, by giving negative security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States, reducing the role of nuclear weapons in defence and security policies andrenouncing the policy of threatening to use such weapons, since it is quite clear today that the very mention of this threat is the greatest incentive to the nuclear proliferation which we all fear.
Thus, Argentina urges the nuclear-weapon States to grant more effective assurances to the nonnuclearweapon States that they will never use or threaten to use such weapons against them.
From the very day it acquired nuclear weapons, China has undertaken never to be the first to use such weapons, under any circumstances.
Like others in this room my delegation believes that parties to the NPT which do not possess nuclear weapons have a legitimate right to receive a legally binding commitment from nuclear-weapon States that they will not use or threaten to use such weapons against them.
In the early 1980s, all five nuclear-weapon States,in response to the international demands for a legally binding treaty on negative security assurances against nuclear weapons, as a first limited step, accepted some qualified undertakings not to use such weapons against States Parties to the NPT and those which renounce the production and acquisition of such weapons. .