The phrase "as weaponization" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts discussing the use of something as a weapon or in a harmful manner.
Example: "The recent developments in technology have raised concerns about its potential to be used as weaponization in cyber warfare."
Alternatives: "as a means of weaponization" or "in terms of weaponization".
Some derided it as the "weaponization of aid," and many charitable groups refused to take on projects in conflict areas, leading to an American reliance on mostly for-profit private contractors.
In a statement on its website, the bureau said: "ELF technology was a legitimate program for naval sub-tonal submarine communications; however, conspiracy theories exist which misinterpret its application as the weaponization of remote neural frequencies for government monitoring and manipulation of unsuspecting citizens".
For that matter, "Wonder Woman" is as harsh on the weaponization of paganism as it is on that of latter-day monotheistic religions.
At the Oxford English Dictionary, Jesse Sheidlower, the principal editor of the North American editorial unit, said weaponization and weaponized were already in the dictionary and they would add weaponize as a verb.
In effect, that is what Mr. Obama is already doing, and will continue doing so long as Iran defers weaponization and North Korea is kept in check.
Built by Russian engineers and monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency, it is already producing electricity, and most nuclear experts agree that it does not merit the same level of concern over weaponization as Iran's other nuclear sites.
But on Monday, diplomats familiar with the Iran file said Iran had begun substantial discussions with I.A.E.A. experts on some issues linked to "weaponization," as part of the agency's investigation of Iran's nuclear activities.
(Einhorn said in an e-mail that he would prefer not to discuss Iranian weaponization with me, as did a spokesman for Gary Samore, President Obama's special assistant for arms control).
The potential for overreach of CISADA's "energy" classification may be reminiscent of restrictions and prohibitions on exports prohibited in pre-war Iraq, specifically when non-weaponized materials such as x-ray machines, entirely inadaptable to weaponization were characterized as "dual use" materials, the only significant result of that policy was to deprive sick Iraqi civilians of basic care.
Not all poisonous substances are considered suitable for weaponization, or use as chemical weapons.
