The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (or M.A.D.) widely discouraged the use of nuclear weapons during the Cold War. As both the Soviet Union and the US expanded their nuclear arsenals and capabilities (such as the invention of ICBMs in the late 50s and early 60s), it became clear that if either one were to launch a nuclear missile at the other, it would be met with an equally devastating retaliatory strike thereby leading to the decimation of both countries.
This is why the efforts of the Reagan Administration to create a Strategic Defense Initiative (dubbed Star Wars) that could effectively <em>block </em>a retaliatory strike were met with fear on the part of the Soviet Union: if the US could block the Soviet Missiles, then the <em>Mutual </em>piece of Mutually Assured Destruction would not longer stand thereby putting the Soviets at a distinct strategic disadvantage.
Assuming that this is referring to the same list of options that was posted before with this question, <span>the correct responses would be "new information comes to light" and "old theories are discredited". </span>
Answer:
I would buy all the slaves at an auction, and then set them free.
The correct answer is: "Non-intervention policy"
George Washington was adressing the issue on whether it was benefitial or not to establish alliances with foreign countries. Thomas Jefferson did it later as well, exactly in the same line as Washington, as it can be seen in this quotation: <em>"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none."</em>
They exemplified like this the national point of view which had set the way of proceeding at the time. It was maintained from 1789 until the end of WWII. The only exception was the relationship of the US with Panama.
But after WWII the situation became the opposite, the US allied with half of the world and included them as part of the capitalist block, to confront the URSS and the communist system.