Answer: Destroying food resources is more damaging than the use of weapons.
Explanation:
In the aforementioned article, the author explains how using starvation and food insecurity as weapons of war by destroying food resources, can be more damaging than the use of weapons.
Destroying food resources can threaten entire populations as they may starve to death while weapons cannot regularly do so. For instance, Germany could have implemented food destruction policies in WWII that would have killed 20 million Russians and the starvation of Biafra by the Nigerian government during the Biafran war killed many times more Biafrans by the armed conflict did.
Answer ls face the world face ls
Answer:
7+2 is 9
Explanation:
sorry if this wasn’t what you were looking for.
During the 1730s, the colony of Georgia prohibited the practice of African slavery (Option "C" is the correct answer). The founders of Georgia, who were known as the Trustees, banned black slavery as a matter of public policy. By the mid-1740s, the Trustees realized that prohibiting slavery was becoming a lost cause. So, the Trustees agreed that the ban on slavery would be overturned depending on the conditions for enslaved people. They wished to ensure a smaller ratio of blacks to whites in Georgia. However, the Trustees' ban expired in 1752 and the planters with their slaves soon dominated Georgia colony's government.
