Charles Darwin's exploration of the Galapogos Islands, led him to develop the theory of evolution, with the crux of his thesis being the idea of “survival of the fittest”. The idea that only the species with the most advantageous adaptation survives can be employed to help explain how some nations defend their sovereignty. In the past century warfare has evolved to employ greater means of technology. This advance of technology is essentially an example of how a nation is able to adapt, and therefore strengthen their military power, to better achieve success on the battle field. Although not from recent history, the implementation of the Manhattan Project in the early 1940’s is a prime example of a nation, the USA, along with other allied countries, to advance technology to help end the second world war. The Manhattan Project was a secret project primarily conducted within the USA to advance the area of physics, specifically fission and fusion reactions, in the hope of developing an atomic bomb, which was successful. This specific advance in technology, or adaptation, was an integral part of strengthening the military’s strength which then led to the end of the war.

Although war time necessitates military strength to defend a nations sovereignty, the majority of the time a country is not at war but is in a state of peace. During these times, a country needs to survive in regards of providing its citizens with an economic climate that can support them and provide them with opportunities to increase or maintain a good standard of living. If a nation’s economy fails then the nation’s ability to survive independently is drastically reduced. The country of Greece just recently went through a large economic crisis which force them to seek help from other countries within the European Union. I can be argued that if Greece was not part of such a group of nations, with such deep pockets such as Germany, then Greece would have failed to recover the small amount they did due to the financial handouts from the partner nations. Greece would have been forced to seek help from outside their economic allegiences and would therefore have lost some control over their economy and nation.

In the world climate today, it not only is necessary for countries to have necessary military strength to defend their nations sovereignty during times of war, but it is also necessary for the nations to be economically sound to defend their nations soveirgnty during times of peace. Without the adaptation and military strength of the USA and other Allie countries, due to the development of the atomic bomb, the second world war may have ended differently, with the loss of control of countries such as the USA. However, it has been seen that in times of peace that if a country is not economically stable, such as Greece, the nations sovereignty can also be compromised.

The world has seen many changes in the past century- two world wars, changing borderlines, the dissolution of countries. It is almost as if the world experiences its own form of “natural selection”. In most of these cases, a nation’s ability to survive has depended on the strength of its military. Victory can be achieved through the size of troops and great leaders with good strategies. The 2nd Sino-Japanese War was a part of the Second World War, and was a fight between the Chinese and Japanese for the control of the western border of China. The war began during a period of instability for China, as there was conflict between the ruling Nationalist party and the growing Communist party. The two regimes had independent armies, which made the Chinese Army weaker to Japanese attacks. In an attempt to save their country from the Japanese, the Nationalist and Communist military troops joined forces, and soon after, the Japanese declared defeat.

Although war is still occurring all over the world, a bigger threat for many countries has been of an economic nature. The United States for example, a country known for its strong military presence, has been facing an economic crisis. Reckless lending practices by financial institutions, as well as a sharp increase in oil and food prices has led the country into what has been deemed the “Great Recession”. The United States has seen a decrease in international trade, a dramatic increase in unemployment, and has had to provide financial assistance to large companies who have incurred large debts. The country is in a state of crisis, and the strength of its military can do nothing to bring it out of this recession. It seems as if during “peacetime”, a country may be more susceptible to internal sources of distress.

In general, a nation’s ability to survive is largely dependant on the strength of its military, especially in times of war. Greater numbers, good leadership, and smart strategy can overcome opponents. But during times when war is not a threat, the cause of a country’s demise may lie within the nation itself, a conundrum independent of military strength.

As stated by Joseph C. Wilson, “The last option for a democratic nation is war.” This statement is true on many fronts, but outlines the essential function of a democratic nation at an international level, which is to increase its international reputation in a positive manner and create mutually beneficial relationships with other countries. Although military strength is important for protection, it alone will not achieve success for any nation.

At the height of World War II (1939-1945), absolutely no political compromise could be reached between the Allies and Germany regarding the land disputes that instigated the war from the beginning. As a result, the democratic Allied nations had to turn to this “last option” and deploy their militaries in order to prevent further bloodshed of innocent civilians and reclaim land sought after by the German’s. Although such violent action should not be the primary resort of a democracy, in this case, it was critical that the military of the Allied nations be strong, because if it wasn’t, the German’s would have succeeded and the process of mass sterilization would have continued. In this case, it is clear that a nation (or nations) with a strong military are effective at achieving political success because they can use such a military to achieve set government goals.

Although having a strong military is important for protecting the valuable assets of a nation, it is not the only facet that a successful country can possess. The foundation of a vibrant nation is built on the cornerstones of education, public safety and health care, among others. For a nation to be economically and politically successful, it must ensure that its citizens are being adequately educated so that conflicts and problems at the national level can be solved appropriately and also so that new ideas and approaches can be presented at the national and international levels to improve the stature of these climates. A nation that is safe to live provides security and satisfaction to its inhabitants, and allows for the development of individuals who can succeed at bettering society as a whole. Finally, an adequate health care system allows the sick and wounded to be healed, decrease the likelihood of illness-related deaths, and maintain sanctity within the nation.

It is clear that a strong military is not the only key to the success of a nation. Many other facets of society such as political, economic, social and cultural are critical for ensuring that a country maintains a firm but positive international reputation. These outlets are filled by ensuring that the country has adequate education, safety, and health care, among other factors. However, a strong military is important for protecting these assets. Furthermore, there are situations in which the strength of a military will solely determine the overall success of a nation, such as when it is the last option for a democratic nation, as seen by the Allies in defeating the Germans in World War II. Overall, it is apparent that the hallmark of a successful, powerful and influential nation is in finding the balance between a strong military, and other assets such as education, safety, and health care.

A strength of a nation is truly test in times of adversity. The power of the military often determines the survival of a country.
Military strength represents a country's ability to defend itself and respond to a crisis. The ability of a nation to survive refers to its ability to ensure the health and well-being of the country's citizens. Military strength allows for the protection of a country's citizens, increasing the country's ability to thrive. For instance, during the second World War, the United States of America suffered an attack on Pearl Harbour in December 1941. This attack by Japan forced the United States to declare war on the Axis alliance in order to defend itself. The attack threatened the safety and well-being of Americans and military action was necessary to address the danger. Thus in this time of war, the ability of the United States to survive as a country was highly dependent on its military capabilities.

Although, military strength can be the determining factor of a country's survival, there are instances where other factors play a larger role. Healthcare is essential to the ensuring the well-being of citizens, which in tern determines the survival of the country as a whole. For example, in June 2009, there was the threat of an H1N1 epidemic across Canada. The Ontario government invested millions of dollars to provide vaccinations to its residents. This focus on fighting H1N1 and investment in healthcare greatly decreased the number of people who contracted the illness. In this situation, the welfare of Canadians was protected by effective healthcare without any military intervention.

It is not always clear if a nation's survival depends on its military strength of some other determining factor. A key component of a country's survival is whether the situation occurs during at time of war and chaos or a time of peace. When the United States was attacked during World War II, military mobilization was needed to defend the nation's citizens and ensure survival. The H1N1 scare occurred during a time of peace where there was n immediate threat to the safety of Canadians. In this case,
the ability of Canada to survive depended on its healthcare, not military strength. It is evident that a nation's ability to survive depends on military strength in times of war, but on effective healthcare
during times of peace.

PROMPT: A nation's ability to survive is often dependent upon its military strength.

A nations ability to manage to progress as a society is reliant on the strength of the military. Kim Jong Il, a powerful totalitarian communistic dictator rules over North Korea with an iron fist. He is a leader who opposes change and freedom of speech. For a nation to stay together and progress it must be seen as a powerful opponent. Though, it has one of the world’s worst human rights records, North Korea now has the 4th largest army in the world. Around the world, countries are scared of how far the North Korean army has progressed and the weapons of mass destruction that it could use to wage war against other countries.

Though a nation's ability to survive can often depend on its military strength, there are some circumstances in which it does not, such as when Mahatma Ghandi lead the Indian independence movement without the need of an army. He pioneered Satyahagra which is a mass civil disobedience towards tyranny and is based on ahimsa (non violence). For the society to progress it was paramount the change must have come from within the individual himself. India would never have become an independent nation had it not been for Mahatma Ghandi and thus, would not have progressed as a nation.

The debate between whether a nation's ability to survive is dependent upon its military strength is difficult to resolve. However, the guiding principles should be that if the country as a nation is to progress depending on its military strength is when the leader is not willing to change. Kim Jong Il would not have had the funding to build the 4th largest army in the world if everyone had individual rights. A country need not be dependent on its military strength when the change comes from within the individual leader. If Ghandi had not taken drastic measures to bring about a change in society, India might have become stagnant. In sum, the governing principle of when a nation is dependent or not on its military for strength is when there is a change in the individual leader or not.

‘Survival of the fittest’, a key underlying principle in Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, basically dictates that, the strongest, fastest, and best looking will survive, while the weak, slow and the ugly die off. This notion of survival is clearly embedded in our everyday speech and activity, but can it be extended to a nation? War is a creation of mankind, and a reality that affects the lives of almost every human being. In order to protect themselves, countries will spend billions of dollars on the formation of an army, ultimately for the protection and survival of that specific nation. This power is evident in World War II, where the Allies were trying to defeat the Axis, with the intention of destroying Hitler’s regime. The Allies, with their larger numbers and better technology, proved to be a stronger army and had the upper hand, eventually overcoming the Axis and winning the war. Evidently showing that in times of war, a strong army can be a crucial difference to a nation’s survival.

In some cases, like when the country is ravished with internal conflict, the strength of the army is unlikely to be of much use in combating the nations own people. A strong example of this is Iraq and its current state. After the US invaded Iraq and successfully put a halt to Saddam Hussein’s regime, one of the top priorities was to help Iraq build its own army in order for it too gain independence and be able to stop the violence amongst its people. After 7 years, this Iraq army is of little use and the country is still war ravished, obligating Barack Obama to keep his troops there in hopes of rehabilitating the nation to one day provide a safe society for its citizens. Iraq’s deficiency at maintaining social order within the country shows that the strength of the military, when dealing with internal conflict, is not directly related to its ability to survive.

War and military are often tough topics for people to agree on, especially when so many people are suffering from its harmful effects. However, the strength of a military shows its obvious benefits to survival when nations are dealing with international conflict, evident in WWII when the Allies defeated the Axis because of the greater strength off the military. On the other hand, the survival of a nation can not be best protected by a strong military in the case of internal conflict within that nation. Iraq still faces rebellion and fighting from its people despite its growing army.

A nation can be defined as a country which shares a set of goals that the country is interested in perpetuating in order to survive as a nation. These goals can include how the country functions on a day to day basis, how the country taxes their citizens, or the stance that the country takes when there is a world issue. Often times, a country, or nation’s ability to survive can be strongly correlated or dependent on the strength of their military. For example, in the late 1930’s in Germany, the country’s leader (Adolf Hitler) had a goal in mind that he was interested in perpetuating. Hitler (amongst some of his other ideas) was interested in developing an Aryan race, or a group of people who all had fair skin, and blue eyes. As radical as this idea may have been, the ability of Hitler and Germany to perpetuate this idea was strongly influenced by the its military strength. Without their strong and powerful military, this idea would have phased out quite quickly.

However, sometimes a country or nation’s ability to survive is not primarily influenced by how strong their military is. Recently, it became very apparent that there is a shortage of food in the world. Basically there is too little food available for the amount of people that live on earth. This resulted in food prices sky rocketing. Therefore, some people experienced paying higher prices on their groceries, whereas some such as in India were unable to obtain these valuable products. When the citizens of India are unable to purchase all of their necessary food items, the ability of this nation to survive is no longer dependent on its military strength. The ability of this nation to survive is now dependent on how the nation will be able to feed the citizens of this country, and therefore be able to grow as a nation.

The criteria that should be established on when a nation’s ability to survive is dependent on its military strength and when it is not, is quite simple. If the country or nation has their basic needs met, such as being fed, clothed, and having clean water, then any idea that this country would like to perpetuate will be primarily influenced by how strong their military is. In the 1930’s, the majority of people living in Germany were experiencing a high standard of living. Therefore, since the basic needs of the citizens were met, Germany could focus on other goals or ideas that needed to be perpetuated. Any ideas set forth by the leader would be strongly dependent on the strength of the military. If a country’s basic needs are not met, such as not having enough food to eat, or not having clean water, then the country or nation’s ability to survive will not be dependent on military strength. This nation’s ability to survive will be dependent on thinking and exercising a plan that deals with the problem of how to feed and keep their citizens alive.

Military strength has proven very effective in insuring the survival of many nations involved in the past two world wars. During World War II, Manhattan project lead the world to fear America for its military power after dropping its first nuclear weapon. Also the World War II saw Germany’s collapse which was due to its inability to keep up its military strength. Germany kept invading other nations and at last it didn’t have enough power to face the British. In embracement, Hitler committed suicide when his military forces were proven ineffective against the British.

Diplomacy is another means of ensuring a nations ability to survive. Nelson Mandela, the first President of South Africa is one of the most diplomatic presidents the world has seen. South Africa was bound to collapse like many African nations abandoned by the colonizing countries due to the tactics used by freedom fighters. Nelson Mandela however chose a significantly different path that had not been tried by any other African freedom fighter. Nelson Mandela fought for his people but did not order attacks to the White man, nor did he nationalize their properties once he was in power. The Whites were allowed equal rights as the blacks and although it took a longer time to gain independence from the Dutch, today South Africa is the most successful country in the African continent. After its survival was threatened by apartheid, a few decades later, not only is it economically successful, South Africa also held the soccer World Cup 2010 which brought all nations to celebrate together.

When a chance of achieving middle grounds is jeopardize, due to power struggle or between leaders with compromised ability to communicate, military power is essential for the survival of a nation. When communication is possible on the other hand, diplomacy proves to be a more successful means of ensuring survival of a nation.