In what way was the war in the Pacific different from the war in North Africa

For starters, the terrain, the people, the weapons.

Explanation:

North Africa was rocky and mountainous in some places, and more easily acessed in other places. It is a desert region, and arid year round. The islands on which the war in the pacific was held were mountainous in some areas, and comprised mostly of jungle and wetlands.

While the war in North Africa was fought by the Nazis, Arab sympathizers of the Nazis, the British and their various allies, and the American troops, the war in the Pacific was fought by the Imperial Japanese, the British navy and marines, and the American navy and marines.

The war in North Africa was fought heavily with tanks, but the Pacific was too inaccessible to the allies for them to be practical.  In their stead were amphibious vehicles like those that are used today by the modern Marine Corps, and flame throwers were used to a great extent to flush the Japanese out of their fortifications, usually caves and systems of tunnels.

yes, there are senators in each state

due to inefficiency of management, the business plan has failed

idk what right product means but i assume it's this one since this was the last one left after i did the other three

the finance team has misjudged the requirement of business plan and chosen a wrong line of credit

operations risk is when the employees make a mistake

flash floods have damaged all machinery in the main manufacturing

natural disasters include anything ruined in the business by the weather or other disasters such as earthquakes

there have been foreign exchange rate fluctuations

economic risks is when things in the economy changes (like interest rates, currency value). the government has a large part in controlling this