Word: threatener
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...follows that any actions by China that threaten global stability have to be rebuked. The habit of trying to make China cooperate only by granting concessions has not worked. Co-evolution suggests a different approach. It acknowledges the importance of giving China a say in how the world develops but demands in exchange an absolute commitment to curtail activities that make it more dangerous. It's a case of saying to China, You're a partner in managing the global economy, but you can't then manipulate your currency to gain unfair trade advantages. Or: We'll respect your interests...
...Republicans as the “party of no” and highlight the Democrats as the enablers of the public will. By casting his legislative victory as a response to popular clamoring for reform, Obama would aid the reelection bids of those Democrats whose yea votes now threaten their seats in November...
...that President Obama released on Tuesday. After all, the text spells out how many nuclear weapons the U.S. will continue to deploy around the world and the conditions under which it would be prepared to use those weapons - no small thing considering that its arsenal is big enough to threaten the survival of the species. Here are five ways in which Obama has shifted - or not shifted - U.S. nuclear policy from the George W. Bush years...
...start a nuclear war (against friendly nations at least) The NPR says the U.S. would not threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states - as long as they are not seen to be developing nuclear weapons. This is both a carrot and a stick for countries with suspected weapons aspirations such as Iran and Syria, as well as those with confirmed nuclear programs, like North Korea. The carrot? A guarantee of security if they fall in line with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The stick? The possibility, however remote, of nuclear war if they...
...mission to use weapons of mass destruction. That implies that the U.S. would use nuclear weapons against any state that gave a nuclear weapon or weapons-grade material to terrorists. Some nuclear terrorism experts - most noticeably Graham Allison of Harvard University - had hoped the U.S. would go further and threaten nuclear war against any nation from which terrorists had obtained nuclear material - even if it was stolen. This, Allison said, would give urgency to the task of securing weapons and weapons-grade material. But there are obvious problems with that. Would the U.S. really bomb Russia if terrorists stole material...