can be defined as a broad and unpredictable spectrum of military, paramilitary, and information operations, conducted by nations, organizations, or individuals or by indigenous or surrogate forces under their control, specifically targeting weaknesses and vulnerabilities within an enemy government or armed force.

Asymmetric threat

Explanation:

The asymmetric threat is a form of warfare threat that has become common to the world these days. The term asymmetric refers to not identical or absence of symmetry.

The asymmetric threat is the war that is fought between the military forces that differ from each other in terms of their strategies, tactics, etc. The war is usually fought between professional army and unlawful combatants. In such a type of war, the military usually targets the weaknesses of the enemy army.

An example of 'asymmetric threat or warfare' is the American Revolution War.

So, the correct answer is asymmetric threats.

The correct answer is Asymmetric Threat

Asymmetric Threat is not only the war of the weak against the strong: it is the introduction of an element of rupture, technological, strategic or tactical, an element that changes the preconceived idea; it is the use of an opponent's weak point.

Therefore, there is no asymmetrical armed conflict just because of the inequality between the opponents, but when the adversaries adopt different forms of combat in their conception and development. In operational terms, then, the asymmetry (understood as unbalance) “derives from a force employing new capabilities, which the opponent does not perceive, understand or expect: conventional capabilities that surpass those of the opponent or that represent new methods of attack and defense ”.

It is really light infantry warfare, which can move farther and faster over land than the enemy, which has a complete tactical repertoire (not just keeping in touch and requesting fire support), which can fight with its own weapons (as opposed to relying on support weapons) and to maintain minimal logistical support.

question - in 1827, john walker, a druggist in a small english town, tipped a splint with sulphur, chlorate of potash, and sulphid of antimony, and rubbed it on sandpaper, and it burst into flame. the druggist had discovered the first friction-chemical match, the kind we use to-day. it is called friction-chemical because it is made by mixing certain chemicals together and rubbing them. although walker's match did not require the bottle of acid, nevertheless it was not a good one. it could be lighted only by hard rubbing, and it sputtered and threw fire in all directions. in a few years, however, phosphorus was substituted on the tip for antimony, and the change worked wonders. the match could now be lighted with very little rubbing, and it was no longer necessary to have sandpaper upon which to rub it. it would ignite when rubbed on any dry surface, and there was no longer any sputtering. this was the phosphorus match, the match with which we are so familiar. according the paragraph what was the benefit of the new phosphorus match? it burst into flame when rubbed on sandpaper. it was made by mixing chemicals. it could be ignited on any dry surface. it threw fire in all directions.

answer - matches required natural chemicals

there are indirect ways of affecting state laws   by with holding funding's. and that's why we have a 55mph speed on the high way with a design of 70mph speed.