The correct answer is B i jus took this test lol
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 ☺
Maybe it means that there’s a difference between how much land they own or something. It says there was a difference between the amount of land they occupied and the amount of land they couldn’t control. So maybe they didn’t own/have a lot of land but there was a lot of land they couldn’t get to/take over etc. or maybe this situation could be vice versa so they have a ton of land but only a little isn’t “controlled” let me know if this helps sorry if it’s confusing I’m just guessing based on the context clues :)
The trend that has been true in the United States is that minorities are growing fast.
C. Women were not allowed by law to participate or watch the Olympics.
Women in ancient Greece were not allowed to participate or watch the Olympics.
Hope this helps! Good luck. :)
