Answer:
monopoly
The term monopoly is often used to describe an entity that has total or near-total control of a market.
You did not show the diagram. Show the diagram
The Europeans in the Caribbean felt the need to bring in enslaved Africans as laborers because the native American Indian workers had become physically weak due to diseases and the Caribbean plantations were in requirement of stronger labor force. The Africans by birth were very strong and they as slaves would perfectly suit the needs of the Caribbean plantations.
Answer:
This question is really geared more towards your own interpretation, so there isn't necessarily going to be a right or wrong answer. I would say that today the first amendment protects when people are speaking out against policies and general injustices in the American society today, and for instance, on social media I have seen people say "f trump and f america." The first amendment is protecting them, so that nobody can hold that statement against them and press charges. If we lived in russia, the russian secret police would find you, and kill you for that. Personally, I believe that if someone wanted to burn an american flag on their front lawn, and curse america, they should not be protected by the first amendment. that should be a crime. However, the first amendment does protect them, so there is nothing anyone could do about that legally.
Explanation:
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 ☺
