Taking an educated guess here -- I think it would be 1, 3, and 4 which all seem pretty reasonable.
Answer: A. Cavalry
Explanation: The "blitzkrieg" is a military tactic that was created by the Germans during World War 2. Speed is a requirement as a blitzkrieg is meant to overpower the enemy before it has time to prepare for battle or receive aid from allies. Tanks and planes are also key components as they are powerful and maneuverable, which is also needed for a blitzkrieg to be successful. Cavalry is not, and never was, needed for a blitzkrieg.
Answer:
I hope it helps u.
Explanation:
Arms races have generated a great deal of interest for a variety of reasons. They are widely believed to have significant consequences for states' security, but agreement stops there. In the debate over their consequences, one side holds that arms races increase the probability of war by undermining military stability and straining political relations. The opposing view holds that engaging in an arms race is often a state's best option for avoiding war when faced with an aggressive adversary. Debate over the causes of arms races is just as divided. One school believes that arms races are primarily rational responses to external threats and opportunities, whereas arms race skeptics believe that arms buildups are usually the product of a mixture of internal, domestic interests, including those of the scientists involved in research and development (R&D), the major producers of weapons systems, and the military services that will operate them. The policy implications of these contending views are equally contradictory; critics see arms control as a way to reduce the probability of war and rein in domestic interests that are distorting the state's security policy, and proponents argue that military competition is most likely to protect the state's international interests and preserve peace.
Arms buildups and arms races also play a prominent role in international relations (IR) theory. Building up arms is one of a state's three basic options for acquiring the military capabilities it requires to achieve its international goals; the other two are gaining allies and cooperating with its adversary to reduce threats. In broad terms, choosing between more competitive and more cooperative combinations of these options is among the most basic decisions a state must make, and it is often the most important.
Mark me as brainlist answer,
Have a nice day,
Thank you ☺
Bryan was the last of the Great Political Orators in some ways. He could speak at great length on any topic, using powerful imagery, often of a religious nature, to audiences raised on such language and imagery.
Unfortunately, the telegraph already was encouraging economy of language, and the radio would make long speeches less useful than shorter ones which reached the point quickly. People in churches no longer spent hours listening to a single sermon, and those who followed the earsteps of Abraham Lincoln learned that eloquence was not a matter of length, but of substance.
The “Cross of Gold” speech which he thought would propel him to the Presidency would not work today.
The only orators today who speak interminably tend to be dictatorial in nature, in love with their own voice, and whose followers dote on every word, no matter how repetitious. Bryan was leagues above that, but someone who seeks his skill will learn why society has passed the skills of the long-sermoned preacher by.
The states were all trying to create their own government and all the other nations were confused as to who wanted what in trade or how anything worked
