A country's ability to survive is gauged according to the economic status of the nation and it's citizens. Military strength can have a huge impact on this ability to survive as a nation, due to the power that accompanies such a force. The United States has become one of the largest military superpowers in the world. Often, this dominant militant power is called upon by other countries in conflict, when their own military will not suffice. This dominant presence as a military country on the world stage has resulted in negative relationships with a number of other countries, but it has also led to the formation of strong bonds with some nations, leading to trade agreements and mutual economic growth.

Although the United States are considered to be thriving largely due to it's military strength, other countries, such as Canada, which has a far less developed military, have still been able to prosper and thrive economically. Canada is considered to be a peace keeping nation, which has allowed the country to maintain its neutrality during conflicts and it's relationship with other countries worldwide. In addition to maintaining trade relationships with other nations, contributing to economic growth, the costs associated with running such a small military are considerably less than those associated with a military as large as the United States.

The development of military forces differs greatly in various countries across the world. Although this is an important determinant in the survival of a nation, the success of a country can also depend on many other factors. Thus a country can be considered successful and not only surviving, but thriving, even without a powerful military. A nations survival depends on its military strength when the country is involved in conflict with other countries worldwide. When a nation has established itself as a peace-keeping or neutral country, the survival will not depend on its military strength.

Survival is the most basic human instinct. From starvation to invasion to persuasion, mankind has done what it must to survive. However the concept of survival has evolved from the simple sustenance of life to a more complex definition which includes a nation's ability to maintain a stable economic, social and political infrastructure so as to allow the perseverance and prosperity of the nation's civilians. One of the most significant instances in which military strength allowed this form of survival was during World War II where the military strength Allied forces eventually overwhelmed the armies of the Axis powers. The sheer number of soldiers combined with the superior technology allowed the Allies to win the War and eventually resume their state of stability and growth.

While a military power has been shown to aid in survival, there are cases in which prosperity does not depend on green and blue berets. On December 1st 1991, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the formation of a republic Russian state marked a day where military strength and government oppression were simply not enough for a nation to survive. Despite aggressive military action towards protesters and frequent violent outbursts, the military was simply unable to subdue the determination of the Soviet civilians to bring down the authority and demand a new political system. The internal turmoil of the nation was too much for it to be resolved by simple military action.

The topic of a nation's strength being measured by means of its military power is a controversial issue. However, the debate can be resolved by the following guideline. When a nation is facing internal conflict such as a a volatile political infrastructure, military power alone is not sufficient to adequate survival as was demonstrated in dissolution of the Sovet Union in 1991. However, when an the majority nation is united on an issue and there is union between civilians and authority such as the common goal to defeat the Axis powers in World War II, a nation's military strength will determine it's ability to survive.

Feedback: 4/6
- 'Militant' doesn't mean the same thing as 'Military'
- Good arguments; you need to elaborate more on your claims. For instance, when you say the the dominant presence of the U.S. as a military country has resulted in both negative relationships with other countries as well as strong bonds with some nations, you need to justify why this would lead to trade agreements (is it fear? or do the strong bonds formed outweigh the negative bonds?)
- When you discuss Canada, you make very broad and general comments. Try and make your argument more convincing. Also, due to Canada's geographic proximity to the U.S. don't we benefit from their military force indirectly? Perhaps dismissing this or down-playing our relationship with the U.S. would have made your claims stronger.
- Excellent use of language, although you use military as both an adjective, verb and noun (careful with that).
- Your conclusion is adequate, but you need to integrate it better with the examples you used (i.e. place Canada and U.S. in the context of your criteria).

Feedback: 6/6
- Nice examples; excellent control of the written word.
- Very coherent, logical. Your conclusion is exactly what the marker wants to see: balance with a CLEAR set of criteria.
- Well done! Excellent definitions of the prompt's meaning.

A nation's ability to survive can be measured in many ways. The ambiguity comes from the term "survive". A nation that survives could indicate a nation that prevails in war; however it could also indicate a nation that is able to maintain a relatively good quality of life for most citizens and a stable economy without the need for foreign aid. When a nation must survive attack, its ability to do so is often dependant on the strength of its military. An example of this is Germany during World War Two (WWII). Germany had an excellent military and was able to attack, win, and occupy several European courties during the war. The German military was able to withstand attacks from not only the countries it was taking over but many attacks from the Allies, including the United States, Canada, and the British. Luckily, as the military strength of Germany weakened due to the continuous help of the Allied forces, Germany and the Nazi regime was defeated. This shows that a strong military can be the key to a nation's survival, but as the military weakens, so does the ability of the nation to prevail.

Although military strength is indeed important for a nation to survive a direct attack, a nation can "survive" without having any part in a war. As long as a country is able to provide its people with a stable economy and relatively good quality of like it can be said to be surviving. Costa Rica, for example, has no military to speak of but is flourishing due to its lucrative tourism industry and fruit exports. The healthcare available in Costa Rica has been ranked higher than the healthcare of the United States, which has one of the strongest militaries on the globe. This demonstrates that a military is not always necessary for a country to be successful and survive. Indeed, if the healthcare of Costa Rica exceeds that of the United States, perhaps it would be in the best interest of the United States to divert some of its military funds to improving healthcare quality.

The role of the military in the survival of a country depends on the position of the country. If a nation is provoking or being provoked then military strength is very important for the nation to be able to survive an attack. In a situation like that of Germany in WWII, the strength of the military determines how long a nation will survive in a war. If Germany's military was not as strong as it was, Germany would not have hoped to hold out and progress through the war as long as it did. However, if a country is peaceful with no need to create or participate in a war, military strength does not predict the ability of such a nation to survive. The nation of Costa Rica is an example of this. With no military it is still flourishing, let alone surviving. Therefore, a strong military is important for a nation at war, or planning to be at war, to survive, however military strength is not necessary for a nation to be successful and provide for its citizens.


Thank you for your help Nickie!

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.