1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
slava [35]
3 years ago
14

Suppose a country comes out of world war 2 with increased territory but much structural damage. It employs a commandshow has the

development of standardized shipping containers contribute to the growth of globalization?
History
1 answer:
abruzzese [7]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:  As with any well thought out and planned packaging scheme, the science of

military packaging for the United States Government developed from a well recognized logistical

need. This science has evolved over the course of its life to accommodate the many technology

changes in how the military distributes its supplies. It remains a dynamic force that can either

provide a positive or negative contribution to the success of military missions. Unlike most elements

of military doctrine, military packaging is rarely understood and appreciated for its contributions,

thus making it a prime target for criticisms from uninformed opinions.

The purpose of this paper is to make the reader aware of the basic reasons behind why military

packaging exists. This paper will review the many historic factors that first led military leaders to

recognize the need to protect supplies and equipment, and then follow the evolution of the science of

military packaging through current day practices.

GENESIS: The need for specific military procedures and requirements on how to package materiel

first surfaced on two different fronts. The Army had run sustainment exercises to Iceland during the

summer of 1941, and experienced high levels of supply losses that troop units attributed to bad

packaging. The same problem hit the Navy quite dramatically during the amphibious operations at

Guadalcanal in 1942. The commercial packaging that the Army, Navy and Marine Corps used during

the early months of World War II colossally failed to serve its intended purpose, and seriously

jeopardized the War Department's and Navy Department's abilities to sustain operations then being

planned. No one in either of those Departments had paid attention to the changes that had occurred in

packaging designs since Armistice Day.

In 1918, the most common shipping containers for military supplies were wood boxes, crates,

kegs and barrels. These were very much like the common commercial shipping containers of that

era, and were well-suited for all types of supply distribution environments. These containers were

heavy-duty, sturdy designs, generally built by craftsmen. With proper care, some surviving examples

of these containers could be readily used today as intended.

Immediately prior to World War II, military planners failed to recognize that the packaging they

had been receiving with their supplies would not meet their vital needs for overseas operations.

Industry had recognized that they could lower costs and improve profit margins by getting their

products to market in suitable packaging that weighed less and cost less to produce than traditional

packaging. In 1914, American railroads, who at the time were carrying most of the freight in the

United States, recognized and authorized the use of corrugated and solid fiberboard shipping

containers for packing many different types of products. Motor carriers, in turn, followed the

railroads' example in 1935 when they adopted their own packaging rules that often called for

fiberboard boxes. The United States Treasury Department issued the first federal specifications for

corrugated and solid "fiber boxes" in 1930 for packing supplies used by the civil agencies.

Industry, at the time, was also moving toward marketing plans that products would be consumed

Explanation:

You might be interested in
how did the kennedy administration know that the soviet union was putting ballistic missiles in cuba?
Komok [63]
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.
3 0
3 years ago
Which of these results of the Columbian Exchange was negative for Native
LenKa [72]
The answer is c I think
3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Thế nào là nguồn vốn của ngân hàng thương mại
Delvig [45]
I don’t know what this means
7 0
3 years ago
How successful do you think the french revolution was ? explain anwser
lara [203]

Answer:

The French revolution was successful in <u>its struggle to achieve rights and freedom for the common populace of France</u>

7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Jinga lala huuu hu.....xd​<br><br>koi hai kya​
rusak2 [61]

Answer:

b

Explanation:

5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which mineral resources are most important to Mexico
    10·2 answers
  • What qualities or characteristics made the Ottoman Empire influential across Europe?
    15·1 answer
  • What was the main reason for Henry VIII's split with the Roman Catholic Church?
    10·1 answer
  • Which diagram most effectively show how a voter influenced policy? Answer C
    10·2 answers
  • How did Judge John Marshall use the case of Marbury v. Madison to expand the authority of the Supreme Court?
    6·1 answer
  • How was the Atlantic seaboard divided?
    14·1 answer
  • Which of the following was NOT one of Georgia's historical capital
    5·2 answers
  • Which outcome did the development of the washing machine most directly
    6·1 answer
  • Who invented transformers
    5·1 answer
  • The aztec empire was destroyed because
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!