Answer:
Religion, manifested in personal belief and in organized denominations, is a large part of American life. The responses of major religious denominations and of religiously identified individuals to AIDS have been an important feature of the epidemic. Many religious groups have interpreted the AIDS epidemic in the light of their beliefs and teachings. Those interpretations have often led to public pronouncements on AIDS education, prevention, and care, as well as to the shaping of public attitudes toward those afflicted by or at risk of HIV infection. In addition, individuals who identify themselves with particular religious denominations or express particular religious viewpoints have taken positions about AIDS in light of their beliefs. Their positions have often been within the realm of private attitudes, but sometimes they have been manifested in public comments and actions. Given the broad influence of religion in the United States, the response of religious organizations and individuals is a factor in the effort to control the epidemic and to care for those affected by it.
Absolutism was a very common form of government in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries and defended the theory of the king's absolute power over the entire nation. The power of kings during the <u>Middle Ages </u>was considered limited compared to the absolutist period, as there was a lot of political fragmentation and the king's influence depended on a relationship of vassalage, in which the exchange of favors between kings and nobles guaranteed real power.
As modern nations were being structured, mainly England, France and Spain, and as trade resurfaced in Europe, a new social class emerged with great economic power: the bourgeoisie. For the bourgeoisie, the political and economic fragmentation that existed since the Middle Ages was not interesting, as it affected their business, mainly because of the differences in currency and taxes existing from one province to another (even in provinces of the same kingdom, there were these differences in currency and taxes).
The nobility, in turn, welcomed the concentration of power in the figure of the monarch as a way to guarantee control of the lands he owned. Thus, the concentration of power in the hands of the king was a demand from the rising bourgeoisie and also from the nobility.
1) ariel spying over Cuba produced pictures that showed missile silos being built in Cuba. The design of the silos made it clear they were designed for missiles, and it made no sense for Cuba to put in anything less than nuclear missiles there. Missiles they could not build themselves, so had to come from the Soviet Union.
2) Only minutes. A launch from the Soviet Union to the US only takes about 20 minutes. Depending on the range of the missiles put into the silos, warning time would have been anywhere from 3-10 minutes. Not enough time to verify that it was a launch, and not a detection system malfunction, forcing America to launch immediately, or risk losing its capacity to strike back.
3) A direct attack or invasion of Cuba would have forced the Soviet Union to respond in kind. The USSR simply could not abandon Cuba, without losing all credibility among its allies and vassal states. So they would likely have struck back at the US, probably in Europe. This would have dangerously escalated the tensions, and increased the probability of nuclear war. Other officials believed that a quick,determined strike would not only eliminate the immediate threat of missiles in Cuba, but possibly overthrow the regime and force the USSR to accept the situation. The idea of a naval blockade was a compromise position. A threat of force, but one that allowed the USSR to back off. After all, so long as the missiles were not put into the silos, they were no threat.
