Atomic diplomacy definition
A definition of the word ‘nuclear diplomacy’ has been published by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) to reflect the new approach in the international arena.
The new definition was published on Friday by the DFAT in response to an online survey asking Australians how they would use the word when negotiating with countries with nuclear arsenals.
The survey was carried out by the Centre for International Policy Research, a non-partisan think tank.
The centre is also the source of the current DFAT definition.
The word ‘nuke diplomacy’ is also being used in the current ABC program ‘The Nuclear Option’, as a term of art.
It’s the definition given to the concept of nuclear deterrence.
However, there are several definitions that the department has put forward to describe what the term ‘nuclear deterrence’ actually means.
It has also provided some definitions of the words ‘peaceful co-existence’, ‘co-operation’ and ‘peace with respect’ in the definition of nuclear diplomacy.
The definitions have been compiled by the department to allow a broad range of use cases to be considered.
The department says the definition is not an endorsement of the US or any other country’s approach to nuclear weapons.
The definition also does not endorse the US position on the use of nuclear weapons, or its use in any other way, such as to attack or disrupt a country.
“The definition is a summary of the Department’s own experience with using the word nuclear, and is not intended to be a substitute for formal consultation and negotiation,” it said in a statement.
The current definition of ‘nuclear diplomacy’ will be released later this month.
A similar definition is currently being published in the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s ‘Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Diplomacy’ report.
It states that a ‘nuclear-armed state is one that possesses a nuclear arsenal’.
The definition of a nuclear-armed country is also similar, with a focus on the potential for a nuclear war.
The report notes that the use and development of nuclear arms by states like North Korea and Iran could be viewed as an existential threat to global peace.
The term ‘non-nuclear-weapons states’ is used in a separate section of the report.
“Non-nuclear states, such to the extent that they are not party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, are prohibited from using nuclear weapons against any other state,” the report states.
A review of the definition The definition is the result of a review of nuclear policy by the Federation of Australian Scientists and the Australian Institute of International Affairs.
It was published by a joint committee of the government, the Federation and the AIIAA.
It noted the definition had been in place since 2008, but was never formally endorsed by either government.
The government also used a different definition in 2010.
The Department of Defence’s nuclear weapons policy states that it is a ‘defensive nuclear deterrent’.
It states there is no need to define the term.
“While it is possible to use a ‘non defensive’ or ‘non offensive’ term, the Defence Department’s definition is meant to be used only in relation to non-defensive states, including the United States, Canada, the UK, Israel and the Republic of Korea,” the definition says.
“It is not meant to imply that all non-military nuclear weapons states should not be treated with caution, and that there should be a lack of ‘non defense nuclear weapons’ in Australia.”
The government has also used the word “nuclear diplomacy” in other contexts.
It used it to describe its handling of the Iran nuclear deal in 2010, when it had to accept the terms of the deal.
It also used it when discussing its negotiations with North Korea, and when describing its nuclear weapons strategy.
The US and UK, for example, both use the term “peaceful cooperation”.
The definition has been described by the government as “a concept of non-warfare diplomacy”.
“The United States has long used peaceful co-operation to negotiate the nuclear agreement, and the United Kingdom has consistently pursued a similar approach,” it says.
However the definition has also been criticised by the Coalition’s own foreign policy adviser, Mark Scott, who says the word is “a bit of a stretch”.
He said the definition was not a “defensive definition” and the word should be used “when you’re talking about the United Nations Security Council or other bodies”.
“It’s a way of using the term and then saying, ‘Well, you know what?
I’ve got the right to do it.
I’m going to go ahead and do it,'” Mr Scott said.
“There’s a big difference between being a peaceful covenant and a war criminal.”
Mr Scott also said the word was not being used to describe Australia’s nuclear program.
“Australia has no nuclear capability,” he said.
The Government’s nuclear arms policy Mr Scott, a former Defence Department adviser, also questioned the definition.
“To me it seems a bit disingenuous that they’re