Do you think a country is better defended by allies or by its own army?

[tournique]

I believe in a saying "No ally can protect that who can't protect himself."
Do you consider a good thing to be protected by allies more than you can protect yourself? I'm talking about some armies who rely more on allies than on own power.

 

[stryker]

No. It is not a good thing to be dependent upon your allies. A combination of both would be best, but I would think that a country would first want to make certain that it had made it's own personal interests and borders as defendable as possible by it's own military. After that, taking into account the strength of its allies.

 

[CivilDefense]

Being dependent upon an ally is a bad call. However, coalition warfare has developed to the point in which it can be very effective. The first Gulf War is a primary example. The NATO alliance, of which both of our nations are members, has been a strong deterrent from foreign aggression.

 

[UAE]

The question is not is it better or not. Now, its the geoeconomics geopolitics that determine the necessity of whether an alliance should be formed to deter or invade a country.

 

[Onionman]

You can't rely on an ally because unless it truly is in their interest you're not their priority. But you also need to invest enough in your own army to be sufficiently protected and not everyone can do that. At the end of the day, some countries can only really rely on others to do the job anyway.

 

[Bread]

No, it's never a good idea to rely too much on allies. Every country has their own to protect and to be honest, when the going gets bad, expect someone to turn on you. You can't blame them either, they have their own country and people to protect so it isn't something that they can just abandon when it absolutely seems like they will lose.

An ally is basically a bunch of countries holding on to double bladed knives which can either save you or kill you in the process. I guess it's like saying at the end the only one you can really count on is yourself.

 

[freeofcharge]

It's all about finding that happy medium. A nation that intends to survive in this century, with the technology that we now have, and with how small the world has become; must find the happy balance between being dependent on necessary outside resources and an ability to defend or cut ones self off from the world in a catastrophe. I don't think any nation on Earth is presently able to do both of those things entirely effectively. It's a work in progress though - we're all human beings, with flaws.

A nation that can defend itself and also maintain positive relationships and symbiosis with other nations will always be the most successful. You can't ever be too aggressive or too passive for too long. Just like in any other form of life or business

 

[CanisLupas]

Once it was about trade routes and mutual defense pacts - today it is more about politics and protecting economies. It makes sense for powerful companies to protect less able, if it allows for them to maintain or better their economic position. Some countries were banned from protecting themselves due to bad behavior in the past - post war Germany and Japan spring to mind, and littkle option but accept defense from other powers.

It can seem very callous though - we see Kuwait drilling under Iraqi borders and stealing oil, warned and eventually invaded - and the world jumps to their aid - yet we see Rwandans slaughtering each other with abandon in a monstrous fit of ethnic cleansing and so on, with the world turning their backs. Pacts are predicated on "what's in it for me" - so a country is either in number one spot with super high arms spending (like USA/China/and Europe and Russia to a much lesser extent), or giving away the family jewels to be worth protecting.

 

[vegito12]

I think moderation is needed, as allies will work when you really need them to help you and also they would want to know how good you are at protecting your country and how economy is. A country needs to have it's troops and defenses and up to date technology which will show it knows how the modern world works and it is keeping up. I reckon there needs to be a understanding between allies how they will work and when will support be needed and what would they like in exchange.

 

[xTinx]

It should be a combination of both. Why settle for internal defence when you can also invest in various external defence resources including allies and arms imports? The size of the enemy's army and whether or not it has allies also affect the kind of defence a country may undertake. If it attacks as a group, then it would be an advantage to defend as a group too.

 

[Redheart]

What of the very small countries? Would depending on their [small] army make much difference if they are attacked by a country with a larger army and better weapons? I think while it's not advisable to depend on allies, sometimes there's no choice but depend on the kindness of others to help you when an enemy decides to attack you.

 

[CanisLupas]

Ag

What of the very small countries? Would depending on their [small] army make much difference if they are attacked by a country with a larger army and better weapons? I think while it's not advisable to depend on allies, sometimes there's no choice but depend on the kindness of others to help you when an enemy decides to attack you.

Agreed - although it is very rarely (ever?) kindness that is the buy-in for that more powerful "ally".

 

[Redheart]

Maybe not kindness. Some countries will wade into war so they can test the weapons they've been developing on real targets. In a real war. Or it could be a sense of duty that draws them in. Or . . . what they'll gain from that ally.

 

[orangesunset]

A country is always better off defended by their own army. The only reason an ally will defend you is if he has a special interest. If there is no special interest or factors change, they he might decide not to defend you. Also to build up a well trained and equiped army takes time.