Nuclear used in a sentence

Nuclear in a sentence as an adjective

Which in context is basically the nuclear option; the value of a house which can't get a mortgage is pretty much $0. The scheme absolutely relies on being able to get a new mortgage on the houses.

It's not designed to secure nuclear footballs. Touch ID is going to massively reduce the number of totally unsecured iPhones that require zero effort to access.

I think there are similarities between the nuclear power debate and the GMO debate. In both case, I think it's stupid to be fundamentally opposed to the technology/research itself.

That singular event would ignite a US invasion or possibly nuclear assault against the country responsible. People in other countries are also people.

To all who live in the nuclear age, Albert Einstein exemplified the mighty creative ability of the individual in a free society." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 18 April 1955.

The real story here is that this facility allows the US to do nuclear weapons research without violating the nuclear test ban treaty. If the goal was to develop a commercially viable fusion reactor, the $3,500,000,000 spent so far could have been put into projects geared towards small scale fusion experiments investigating novel confinement schemes.

Take a random politician opinion about abortion or nuclear power or any other common political subject. Say his/her opinion is "well, some should be able to do it, but then again there are problems so maybe not, and the issue is not one that need to be address today, and the system today do continue to work, and well, legal greyness is not that big of an issue, only for those in the courts&;&."

That's why sound engineers have physical mixer boards, writers are using pens or keyboards, artists are using Wacom tablets, nuclear physicists are staring at fine-tuning knobs, and motorcyclists are steering with bars, grips, and body positioning; but everyday people are enjoying using their ipad to perform similar tasks. Glass isn't going to wipe out physical interfaces; it's just a flexible tool in an expanding space of interaction techniques.

In related news: scientists have discovered that an uncontrolled nuclear reaction over one hundred trillion times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb is releasing radiation of all known varieties, including lethal gamma radiation, and will result in the inevitable exposure of all of the earth's surface within the next twenty-four hours. Fallout is expected to reach San Francisco within eight minutes, and no known technology is capable of outrunning it, to say nothing of evacuating the entire city in time.

Almost the entire piece does nothing but cite facts, such as: the dropping of the nuclear bombs does not figure significantly in historical records of the Japanese leadership's discussion about surrender; the Japanese war council decided on August 8 not even to discuss the Hiroshima bombing; damage to Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not out of scale with the earlier fire-bombings of other cities; Japanese leaders had expressed a willingness to sacrifice their cities if necessary; Japan's war strategy was predicated on the Soviets staying neutral; and so on. Are these wrong?