It is reliant on the intensity of the attack as well as the power of the attacking nation.
some countries have been attacked and literally never fought back but surrendered if the attacking nation is more powerful in terms of military power.
in case the intensity of the attack can be absorbed, a country can also opt for diplomacy as war is the ultimate sanction in international relation.
in case the country feels it has the capacity to protect its sovereignty then fighting back is the only option.
another way to look at it would be one of the most difficult issues in foreign policy is deciding when the United States should exercise military force. Most people think that military force may be used if a vital national interest of the United States is threatened. The difficulty lies in getting people to agree on what constitutes a vital national interest.
Almost everyone would agree that an attack by a foreign country on the United States threatens a vital interest. Many also would think a vital interest threatened if a country attacked a nation that we had signed a security agreement with. Disagreements emerge when the threat involves the free flow of a precious commodity, such as oil. They also surface over situations that do not pose an immediate threat to U.S. security but could imperil it in the future, such as when a region becomes unstable and the instability may lead to wider conflicts. Another area of debate opens over human rights and humanitarian efforts. The United States is the most powerful democratic nation on Earth. Does that mean we always have a vital interest in promoting human rights and democracy? Or, should we stay out of the affairs of other nations unless they threaten other of our national interests?
Another issue arises over how the United States should exercise military force. Some argue that America should never act unilaterally, but should only act with others, allies or particularly with the United Nations. They believe America has a strong interest in upholding international law. Others agree that it is appropriate to act in coalitions, but they think demanding it in every circumstance would paralyze America’s role as a world leader.
Answer:
I dont think that is an apropriate thing to ask on brainly
Explanation:
Answer:
Science and technology has a profound impact on all of humanity’s activities. Science and technology inventions and discoveries, including the theory of the origin of the universe, the theory of evolution, and the discovery of genes, have given humanity many hints relating to human existence from civilized and cultural points of view. Science and technology have had an immeasurable influence on the formation of our understanding of the world, our view of society, and our outlook on nature. The wide variety of technologies and science discoveries produced by humanity has led to the building and development of the civilizations of each age, stimulated economic growth, raised people’s standards of living, encouraged cultural development, and had a tremendous impact on religion, thought, and many other human activities. The impact of science and technology on modern society is broad and wide-ranging, influencing such areas as politics, diplomacy, defense, the economy, medicine, transportation, agriculture, social capital improvement, and many more. The fruits of science and technology fill every corner of our lives. The hundred years of the twentieth century have been called the “century of science and technology,” the “century of war,” and the “century of human prosperity,” among other expressions. Science and technology have thus far brought humanity immeasurable benefits. In the twenty-first century, dubbed the “century of knowledge” and the time of a “knowledge-based society,” it is hoped that the diverse potentials of science and technology, built upon the foundation of the hard-won science and technology of the twentieth century, will be used to solve the serious issues faced by humanity, such as global environmental problems. Moreover, it is also important to hold the firm belief that science and technology must be faithfully passed on to future generations as an irreplaceable asset of humanity, driven by the trust and support of the public. Science and technology will most likely continue to be regarded by humanity as an invaluable commodity. However, the relationship between science and technology and society is assuming many shapes with the changing times. Against the backdrop of the historical turnaround in the world order that came with the collapse of the U.S.-Soviet cold war structure, and with accelerating scientific and technological progress, as exemplified by the life sciences and IT, it is no exaggeration to say that society is transforming abruptly and daily becoming more complex. This transformation appears in public opinion polls as changes in public awareness of science and technology and heightened public concern over the safety and security of society. In the present, squarely addressing the relationship between science and technology and society is an essential challenge to the sound development of science and technology, one which it is important to continue addressing in the future based on historical and civilized perspectives, while also maintaining a deep awareness of the needs of the times.
Explanation:
This was my project of last year so I just copied and pasted the essay.
Assuming
that ‘mine’ was underlined, then it is a personal pronoun.
<span>A
pronoun is used to substitute a noun. In order for it to substitute, it must
have a clear antecedent. Personal pronouns are used to substitute nouns with
ownership. There are three persons point of view.1st person is when
the subject is the one who is speaking (e.g. I, me, my, mine, we, us, our, ours). 2nd person is
when the subject is the one being spoken to (you, your, yours). 3rd person is when the subject is
the one spoken about (he, him, his,
she, her, hers, it, its, they, their, theirs).</span>
