Examples of using Using such weapons in English and their translations into Arabic
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Political
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
They may have weaker capabilities than States,but they have fewer compunctions about using such weapons.
ICRC reiterated its call to all States to stop using such weapons on their territories immediately, not to transfer them and to destroy their existing stocks.
(b) The Security Council, whenever relevant,to call upon parties to conflict to refrain from using such weapons in densely populated areas;
The plans envisaged using such weapons against targets capable of mounting non-nuclear attacks and in response to sudden military attacks against the United States and its allies in which nuclear, chemical or biological weapons were used. .
(c) Regarding the use of land-mines and like devices,there is a need to establish a clear prohibition on deploying and using such weapons against internally displaced persons by any party to an armed conflict of any kind;
Switzerland has also facilitated various efforts by civil society to advance the humanitarian dimension by highlighting the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and, in particular, the consequences of ever using such weapons again.
As a first step, the United Nations must take the necessary steps to disarm the Syrian regime of its chemical weapons by adopting a bindingresolution that will prevent it from ever again using such weapons against its own people.
The new policy, which involved using such weapons for operational activities contravened the letter and spirit of the NPT and would further lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons by allowing them to be used when conventional weapons could not effectively destroy targets, thereby expanding their scope.
Last Wednesday, 19 February, four Kassam rockets were launched from the Gaza Strip at the southern Israeli town of Sderot, a town that has frequentlycome under rocket fire since terrorists began using such weapons nearly two years ago.
Early movement on nuclear doctrine, with all nuclear-armed states declaring at least that the sole purpose of retaining the nuclearweapons they have is to deter others from using such weapons against them or their allies(while giving firm assurances to such allies that they will not be exposed to unacceptable risk from other sources, including in particular chemical and biological weapons). .
The Oslo Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, which had illustrated the devastating effects of the use of nuclear weapons on human life and the environment,had made evident that even contemplating using such weapons was irresponsible and reprehensible.
Early movement on nuclear doctrine, with all nuclear-armed states declaring at least that the sole purpose of retaining the nuclearweapons they have is to deter others from using such weapons against them or their allies(while giving firm assurances to such allies that they will not be exposed to unacceptable risk from other sources, including in particular chemical and biological weapons). .
If not prepared to go so far now, each such state- and in particular the U.S. in its Nuclear Posture Review- should atthe very least accept the principle that the" sole purpose" of possessing nuclear weapons is to deter others from using such weapons against that state or its allies.
In that regard, it was difficult to believe the United States Government ' s Nuclear Posture Review, which ruled out the development of new nuclear weapons andattacks on non-nuclear-weapon States using such weapons, especially since that Government had never respected any of its commitments.
Whoever, with the sole intention of terrorizing the public, creating a disturbance or causing public disorder, fires a weapon or throws explosive or incendiary substances at persons or property shall be sentenced to three to six years ' imprisonment, without prejudice to the penaltiescorresponding to any offence they may have committed in using such weapons.
The Court cannot therefore view with equanimity the killing of thousands, if not millions, of innocent civilians which the use of nuclear weapons would make inevitable, andconclude that genocide has not been committed because the State using such weapons has not manifested any intent to kill so many thousands or millions of people.
Article 129 of the Criminal Code establishes responsibility for the manufacture, acquisition, storage, transport, transfer and sale of weapons of mass destruction prohibited by the international treaties of Belarus and other prohibited instruments of war or their components andthe conduct of research aimed at manufacturing or using such weapons or components.
Their effects are not clear but might be accentuated owing to synergies, as their chemical properties as heavy metals(prolonged presence in the body)compound the lifelong cumulative exposure to radiation(meaning that they would affect those using such weapons in addition to their targets).
If not prepared to go so far now, each such state- and in particular the U.S. in its Nuclear Posture Review- should at the very least accept the principle that the" sole purpose" of possessingnuclear weapons is to deter others from using such weapons against that state or its allies.
Furthermore, as a first practical step towards a world without nuclear weapons, Japan finds worthy of attention such ideas as enhancing the effectiveness of security assurances not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States orretaining nuclear weapons solely for the purpose of deterring others from using such weapons.
Finally, concerning terrorist activities using biological weapons, although the issue should not be overdramatized, and though the probability that biological weapons would be used in a terrorist attack appears today to be rather low, it is nevertheless true thatonly one successful terrorist attack using such weapons could have devastating consequences.
All nuclear-weapon Statesmust undertake not to be the first to use such weapons.
There are, however, reports that Israel used such weapons in densely populated civilian areas, with severe consequences for residents.
They have used such weapons in the past but they are now using them over populated areas and near key battlefields.
Until the goal is achieved the nuclear-weapon States should give legally binding assurances to the non-nuclear-weapon States that they will not use orthreaten to use such weapons against them.
They are prohibition measures, placing equal obligation on all never again to develop, possess,stockpile or use such weapons.
One of the most terrifying possibilitiesis that non-State actors might acquire and use such weapons.
One of the most terrifying possibilities is, indeed, that non-State actors might acquire and use such weapons.
A binding international instrument should be negotiated in order for nuclear-weapon States to commit to refrain from using, or threatening to use, such weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States.