1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
nirvana33 [79]
2 years ago
7

What is your opinion on policies like nuclear deterrence or mutually assured destruction?

History
1 answer:
Olin [163]2 years ago
7 0

Answer:

My opinion is that the Principle of Deterrence is true.

Explanation:

The Principle of Deterrence was founded on the notion that; a nuclear attack by one superpower would be met with an overwhelming nuclear counterattack such that both the attacker and the defender would be annihilated. This states if you attack another "superpower" or nation, they will likely return fire. This will likely result in both undercoming severe damage and costs.



Have a great rest of your day
#TheWizzer

You might be interested in
What was the main failure of the Articles of Confederation that eventually led to the US Constitution?
vladimir1956 [14]
The articles of confederation had little power on the thirteen colonies which is one of the reasons y it lead to the us constitution
6 0
3 years ago
explain why there were changes in the way ideas about the causes of disease and illness were communicated in the period of 1500-
Margarita [4]

Answer: I think it was because we came up with different medicines and we and we started to understand disease better and had better technology

Explanation:

8 0
2 years ago
As president thomas jefferson greatly changed the united states by​
almond37 [142]

Answer: i would assume the answer would be the Louisiana Purchase. Thats a very important thing he did

Explanation:

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What challenges did judaism and christianity bring to the roman empire?
Tju [1.3M]
Christianity became a tool of the Roman Empire fairly early on in it's spread. 
<span>Religion and politics were inseparable in the ancient world, kings usually represented incarnate manifestations of their gods on earth. Polytheistic believers across the ancient Levant were accustomed to their political leaders telling them what gods were to be venerated during their rule and which deity their ruler was representative of in human form. Adding a new deity or giving a new name to an ancient deity whose belief was already established was how the conquering peoples assimilated their conquered. Tanakh recorded that any time such a practice of a Jewish king telling the Jews that they were to worship a foreign deity, the entire Jewish people suffered and did so at the very hands of the people whose deity they had left God to serve. That lesson is told right in our Jewish Bible in several dramatic narratives, the same one the Christians have as an adaptation of their Old Testament, yet they rarely see this in the story because their New Testament does not focus on the contextual meaning of the narrative, but imposes redefined meanings to support it’s dogma, often using topsy-turvy meaning to words and changes translations of phrases in a number of other places. </span>
<span>Early Christian leaders did not want their flock to know the Paschal lamb represented a false man-god of Egypt, so they changed it into a sacrifice for sin to justify human sacrifice (or deicide depending on whether or not they are calling Jesus God in human form). Sin sacrifices are explained in detail in many places, and having nothing to do with the Passover sacrifice. Exodus makes no reference to the use of the Paschal lamb’s blood for expiating sin. Rather, it describes the blood on the door as an act of defiance to false gods and allegiance to the God of Israel. The sacrifice to God showed the Egyptians that the life force (blood) representing their deity was spilled by the Hebrew slaves and their god was powerless over the God of Israel to do a thing about it. It was an act of rejection of the gods of Egypt and alliance to the God of Israel, and that’s in the Torah in Exodus in context. Rather than show that Isaiah was slamming a man for calling himself a man/god representing Venus, Christian dogma personifies and makes a proper name from their Latin translation's word for star and turns that story into something about a fall of angels (no where mentioned in that narrative at ALL) to create giving of the "name" Lucifer for a demon-god of their underworld hell. Every aspect of Jewish belief is given a new spin. Hellenized Jews already apostate to Judaism after four centuries of their occupation and Roman citizens of Judea and the Galilee, desired to entice other Jews to worship as the Greeks that they believed superior in philosophy and knowledge. Jews had laws forbidding these concepts outright so they created texts that tried syncretism, their efforts to claim ,see this is what it was supposed to have been all along. However, the reality remains that those beliefs of incarnate savior deities and human sacrifice are identical to the beliefs and practices that the Torah demonized.Tammuz/Adonis (melded in Roman occupied lands along with and became Mithras worship) were incarnate sacrificed savior deities who had followers of apostate Jews in the North (Galilee) and areas of Paul's travels. Tammuz and the Romanized version of the Zoroastrian Mithras were both born of virgins (a concept having nothing to do with the Davidic Messiah or Tanakh) and their death was said to have brought their people reconciliation to their *sinful natures*. Being born with a burden of sin is a belief of the pagan peoples surrounding Judea and the Gallilee, and contradicts the Torah notion that humans may master evil inclination ( from Genesis) Tammuz was said to die and be reborn each spring. Tammuz worship had become widespread even before the destruction of the First Temple, and had so many apostate Jews as followers, it was condemned in Tanakh in the book of Ezekiel.  hope it helped :)</span>
6 0
3 years ago
what is the key diffrence between the earliest works of history such as homer's the odyssey and modern works of history
Ede4ka [16]
The technology that we have versus theirs
7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which method of protesting taxes was the most successful for the colonists? Why?
    7·1 answer
  • The strange thing about Engels' writings is that, although they spoke of the uprising of the common worker, his writings were us
    8·1 answer
  • How did Hippocrates differ from Herodotus?
    6·2 answers
  • Which ww1 battle is regarded as the start of trench warfare?
    6·2 answers
  • How did the government under the lords proprietors in South Carolina compare to the governments in the other colones?
    6·2 answers
  • How did trusts and holding companies create unofficial monopolies?​
    7·1 answer
  • How the British dominated India as a colony?
    11·2 answers
  • Which historical event caused thousands of prospectors to come to Numa land? in The Girl Who Gave Voice to her People
    10·1 answer
  • When did israel agree to withdrawal sinai peninsula.
    5·1 answer
  • Can someone please help me? :( I will give brainliest!!
    10·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!