The plural of studio is studios
It is reliant on the intensity of the attack as well as the power of the attacking nation.
some countries have been attacked and literally never fought back but surrendered if the attacking nation is more powerful in terms of military power.
in case the intensity of the attack can be absorbed, a country can also opt for diplomacy as war is the ultimate sanction in international relation.
in case the country feels it has the capacity to protect its sovereignty then fighting back is the only option.
another way to look at it would be one of the most difficult issues in foreign policy is deciding when the United States should exercise military force. Most people think that military force may be used if a vital national interest of the United States is threatened. The difficulty lies in getting people to agree on what constitutes a vital national interest.
Almost everyone would agree that an attack by a foreign country on the United States threatens a vital interest. Many also would think a vital interest threatened if a country attacked a nation that we had signed a security agreement with. Disagreements emerge when the threat involves the free flow of a precious commodity, such as oil. They also surface over situations that do not pose an immediate threat to U.S. security but could imperil it in the future, such as when a region becomes unstable and the instability may lead to wider conflicts. Another area of debate opens over human rights and humanitarian efforts. The United States is the most powerful democratic nation on Earth. Does that mean we always have a vital interest in promoting human rights and democracy? Or, should we stay out of the affairs of other nations unless they threaten other of our national interests?
Another issue arises over how the United States should exercise military force. Some argue that America should never act unilaterally, but should only act with others, allies or particularly with the United Nations. They believe America has a strong interest in upholding international law. Others agree that it is appropriate to act in coalitions, but they think demanding it in every circumstance would paralyze America’s role as a world leader.
To judge whether or not a conclusion is successful, simply look back in the story and try to relate things in the story with the conclusion. Depending on what you find will determine whether or not the conclusion is successful.
In Flowers for Algernon, Charlie and Algernon are both connected. Algernon was the first to "become smart," and Charlie followed. The reader knows from the beginning that their fates are intertwined; what happens to Algernon happens, at some point, to Charlie.
Algernon and Charlie both had their intelligence increased, and both became abnormally intelligent. Algernon and Charlie enjoy a bond that is both a deep connection and a symbolic relationship. In a literary sense, Algernon symbolizes Charlie.
As Charlie becomes smarter, he sees the connection as well. He understands that Algernon's behavior foreshadows his own fate. Therefore, when Algernon's behavior alters, Charlie knows that it is more than likely to happen to him as well. Thankfully, Charlie is so smart at this point that he is in a position to try and delay any changes from happening to himself. That's why he begins to work so intensely. With his great mind, Charlie is attempting to find any way he can to stop the changes from occurring within his own mind.
Sadly, of course, Charlie learns that it is not possible. His great intelligence could not save him from his fate, a fate that mirrors that of Algernon. Both were allowed only a brief moment of glory, despite the best efforts of those who tried to make this brief moment last.
