My answer will be letter d. loyal. Usually all the positive qualities that
employers look for is embodied in him or her being loyal to the company. To make an employee loyal, the company must
take care of that person. When person is
doing well and getting what he or she feels is what she earned and that person
is more than satisfied with how the company is being run, that inspires loyalty
and loyal, workers do more for the
company.
The principle of Mutually Assured Destruction maintain peace between the US and USSR by the realization that both could destroy the other means nobody wants a war.
Mutual assured destruction, principle of deterrence supported on the notion that a nuclear attack by one land would be met with an awesome nuclear counterattack such each the offender and therefore the defender would be wiped out.
By the first Nineteen Fifties each the land and therefore the West were creating spectacular technological strides in what yankee futurist Woodrow Charles Herman architect known as “the motorcar era” of atomic warfare. to several Western strategists, the event of the bomb with its unbelievable killing potential spelled the top of standard ground warfare. Despite the instance of peninsula, consecutive war, they reasoned, would be fought by the nuclear giants, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Such a holocaust may solely be avoided by a method of philosophy, and therefore the development of a large nuclear arsenal would offer the cornerstone of U.S. Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower’s “New Look” programme.
Of the large stockpiles of weapons that the U.S. and therefore the land would proceed to accumulate, statesman magnificently quipped, “If you proceed with this nuclear race, all you're attending to do is build the debris bounce.
Learn more about Mutually Assured Destruction here: brainly.com/question/14768605
#SPJ10
He followed the advice of Arius Didymus who told him that "Too many Caesars is not good". (no joke I swear he actually said that) Hope this helps ;)
Answer:
The official British reply to the colonial case on representation was that the colonies were “virtually” represented in Parliament in the same sense that the large voteless majority of the British public was represented by those who did vote. To this Otis snorted that, if the majority of the British people did not have the vote, they ought to have it. The idea of colonial members of Parliament, several times suggested, was never a likely solution because of problems of time and distance and because, from the colonists’ point of view, colonial members would not have adequate influence.
