0
What else can I help you with?
What countries or contienents has atomic weapons?
USA Russia France United Kingdom India Pakistan China North Korea People think that Israel may also have nuclear weapons. We also share nuclear weapons with Belgium, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Turkey, Canada and Greece, but this just means the weapons are housed there but under US control.
What caused the US Army to take over atomic research in the early 1940s?
The U.S. Army took over atomic research in the early 1940s primarily due to the urgency of World War II and the potential military applications of nuclear technology. Following concerns that Nazi Germany was developing atomic weapons, the U.S. government sought to accelerate its own research efforts. This led to the establishment of the Manhattan Project, which centralized atomic research under the Army Corps of Engineers to ensure a coordinated and rapid development of nuclear weapons. The project's focus was on harnessing nuclear fission for military use, ultimately culminating in the atomic bomb.
When did the Soviets develop their own Atomic Bomb?
The Soviets tested their first weapon in 1949. And they didn't invent it themselves; spies gave it to them; they were later found and executed. They actually didn't steal it, it was created in 1947 under The Soviet weapons program under the leadership of physicist Igor Vasilievich Kurchatov, and then tested fr the frst time in 1949.
Which countries were known to give under nuclear weapons capability in 1985?
In 1985, the countries known to possess nuclear weapons capabilities included the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, and China. Additionally, India had conducted its first nuclear test in 1974, although it was not recognized as a nuclear weapons state under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). South Africa had developed nuclear weapons but dismantled its program in the early 1990s. Other nations, such as Israel, were widely believed to have nuclear weapons, although they maintained a policy of ambiguity.
What weapons were banned under what treaty during World War 1?
cause theyr naked
Under what circumstances can breaking the law ever be justified?
Breaking the law can be justified in certain circumstances when it is necessary to prevent harm or injustice, protect oneself or others, or uphold higher moral principles.
Under what circumstances is war ever justified?
War is sometimes justified when it is necessary to defend against aggression, protect human rights, or restore peace and security.
Under what circumstances can you store your weapons and cash in the same safe drawer?
Never
A warrantless search not incident to an arrest may be justified under the Supreme Court's exigent-circumstances doctrine?
true
Under what circumstances is breaking the law justified?
Breaking the law may be justified in certain situations where it is necessary to prevent harm or injustice, protect oneself or others, or uphold fundamental human rights.
Can a person with a communicable disease be held by a health officer?
Under some circumstances, yes. For example, holding "Typhoid Mary" was fully justified.
Did people in Germany create the Atomic Bomb?
No, the Americans created nuclear weapons under the "Manhattan Project"
How would you describe hacking?
Generally speaking, hacking is breaking into other people's property; it is an immoral action that cannot be justified under any circumstances.
Is it shoot-to-kill in self-defense with a concealed weapons permit?
This is a difficult question to answer, because of several things. The following answer should be considered to be a very basic answer: First, under general deadly force laws, you are not justified in shooting or even shooting at a person unless you are justified in klling that person. So, in that respect, yes. However, in a general sense, in self defense, you shoot to stop the attack, whatever that means under the given circumstances. Under most circumstances, you are no longer justified in shooting once the attack stops, so if you fire one shot, hit the person in the arm, and the person turns around and runs off, you are no longer justified in shooting at him. Another possibility is, you shoot the person in the chest, he falls down, but is only unconscious, not dead. So, in that respect, no, it isn't shoot to kill. Another point is, if you tell a police officer you intended to kill the attacker, that COULD cause problems in court.
In 1946 congress placed nuclear weapons research under civilian control with passage of the?
A. Atomic Energy ActB. Containment ActC. Baruch AmendmentD. Weapons Research ActThe answer is A.Atomic Energy Act
Under what circumstances is the Catholic Church allowed to kill?
Killing another person is always a last resort. However, one is usually justified in a justifiable war and in self defense and the defense of others.
How would the world benefit from disarming from weapons?
the benefit of disarming a weapons is that weapons like nukes have a pressure trigger that can be deactivated under certain circumstances which can only cause minimal damage if a disarmed nukes hits the ground, it will cause a small amount of environmental damage
