a weapons of

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "a weapons of" is not correct in English.
It should be "weapons" without the article "a" since "weapons" is plural. You can use the correct form when referring to multiple types or categories of weapons in a general context. Example: "The military has developed a range of weapons of mass destruction."

⚠ May contain grammatical issues

News & Media

Wiki

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

15 human-written examples

"Saddam Hussein and his family cannot execute a weapons of mass destruction attack by themselves," an American broadcast said.

The New York Times

"Look," the president replied, "I am confident that Saddam Hussein had a weapons of mass destruction program".

The New York Times

"I think there's going to be skepticism until people find out there was, in fact, a weapons of mass destruction program," he said.

The New York Times

Gilligan said his source "knew, better than anyone," that evidence of a weapons of mass destruction programme in Iraq "didn't amount to the 'imminent threat' touted by ministers".

The Guardian

Prime minister's director of communications and strategy, 1997-2003 Campbell has long been linked with the "dodgy" dossier of September 2002 alleging Saddam was pursuing a weapons of mass destruction programme.

The Guardian

Mr. Bush, in an interview last month with NBC News, acknowledged, "there's going to be skepticism until people find out there was, in fact, a weapons of mass destruction program".

The New York Times

Human-verified similar examples from authoritative sources

Similar Expressions

43 human-written examples

Why would the United States start a war to stop a weapons-of-mass-destruction program that had been placed on hold?

The New York Times

Shortly after getting the flowers, Healy received a standing ovation from Red Cross executives who traveled to Washington to attend a weapons-of-mass-destruction-preparedness seminar.

The New York Times - Magazine

Even with this weakness, the convention is the closest thing yet to a weapons-of-mass-destruction accord with teeth: intrusive, short-notice inspections, and trade sanctions (if mild) against nonmember nations.

The New York Times

"A Clean Escape" turns out to be — mild spoiler alert — a weapons-of-mass-destruction parable, and that current of liberal-utopian, antiwar and antidiscrimination sentiment, which typified so much Vietnam-era and later science fiction, runs throughout "Masters of Science Fiction".

The New York Times - Arts

It's a weapon of mass destruction.

The New Yorker

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When referring to multiple weapons, avoid using the indefinite article "a". Use the plural form "weapons" without "a". For example, "weapons of mass destruction" is correct.

Common error

Avoid using "a" before the plural noun "weapons". The phrase should be "weapons of mass destruction", not "a weapons of mass destruction".

Linguistic Context

The phrase "a weapons of" is typically intended to introduce a type or category, but it is grammatically incorrect. It seems to function as an incomplete determiner phrase. As Ludwig AI suggests, the correct form omits the article "a" when referring to plural nouns like "weapons."

Expression frequency: Common

Frequent in

News & Media

75%

Wiki

15%

Encyclopedias

10%

Less common in

Science

0%

Formal & Business

0%

Reference

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "a weapons of" is grammatically incorrect. The correct way to refer to multiple weapons is to omit the article "a" and use the plural form "weapons". Common contexts where this phrase (or its corrected form) appears include news media, encyclopedias, and discussions related to military and international affairs. Ludwig AI highlights that the grammatically correct form is "weapons of mass destruction". While authoritative sources were found using the incorrect phrase, it is crucial to use the grammatically correct version in writing and speech.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

weapons of

Omits the article "a" to correct the grammatical error. Refers to weapons in general.

a type of weapon

Specifies a singular type of weapon, focusing on the category.

an arsenal of weapons

Refers to a collection or supply of weapons.

a range of weapons

Highlights the variety of weapons available.

a category of weapons

Emphasizes the classification of weapons.

different kinds of weapons

Indicates various sorts of weapons.

a collection of weapons

Highlights a group of assembled weapons.

various forms of weaponry

Emphasizes the different forms in which weapons manifest.

a set of arms

Uses "arms" as a synonym for weapons within a defined collection.

selection of armaments

Indicates choosing armaments from a larger group.

FAQs

What is the correct way to refer to multiple weapons?

The correct way to refer to multiple weapons is to use the plural form "weapons" without the indefinite article "a". For example, it should be "weapons of mass destruction", not "a weapons of mass destruction".

What can I say instead of "a weapons of mass destruction"?

You can use alternatives like "weapons of mass destruction", "a type of weapon", or "an arsenal of weapons" depending on the context.

Is it grammatically correct to say "a weapons of mass destruction"?

No, it is grammatically incorrect. The correct phrase is "weapons of mass destruction" without the indefinite article "a".

How does the meaning change if I say "weapons of mass destruction" instead of "a weapons of mass destruction"?

Saying "weapons of mass destruction" refers to the general category of such weapons, while "a weapons of mass destruction" is grammatically incorrect and doesn't have a clear meaning. The correct phrase is used to describe the general concept or existence of these weapons.