Would you rather...
Discussion question | This is for ages 14 to 16
Imagine you are the leader of a country. Which option would you choose?
Would you rather:
- Belong to a strong alliance but lose some independence
- Stay fully independent but have fewer security guarantees
Tell us what you think
You might want to structure your answer like this:
If I were the leader of a country, I would rather [belong to a strong alliance but lose some independence / stay fully independent but have fewer security guarantees]
because [your reason].
Make sure you read the comments from other Topical Talkers to see whether you agree or disagree with them.
Comments (15)
If I were the leader of a country, I would rather belong to a strong alliance but lose some independence because security and cooperation are so important in today's world. Being part of an alliance would mean having support from other countries during conflicts or crises, which makes the nation safer, and more stable. Although some independence might be limited, the benefits of shared defense, economic cooperation, and stronger international relations would help protect the country and its people.
I totally agree, however I’d like to add something really important.
If we think a bit deeper into this point of view, we’ll find that the country itself can protect its independents even in an alliance. It’s a bit critical but I’d like you hearing my point:
To maintain any nationality’s power or decision-making, we’ll need agreements that protect its interests (i mean the country itself) to ensure that partnership doesn’t turn into independence in the very end.
This would help benefit from shared resources and of course the strength while still make your very own important decisions as a country.
In short, this helps the country achieve a lot of priorities like: sovereignty (the country’s full right to govern itself and that’s totally legal) and they also achieve stronger security cuz they’re gaining a lot of support.
If I were the leader of a country, my decision would depend on the countries I would have to belong to an alliance with, especially regarding their economic stability and views on democracy - as I do not want to be connected with countries that don’t support or regard minorities/don’t share the same views on democracy as I do.
Furthermore, my decision would strongly depend on the opinion the society in my country has: for me to actually understand and take notice of these opinions, it would be best to hold a vote amongst the population of my country and perhaps to have discussions with people that are ready to talk to me, which would also give me the opportunity to communicate with my people in other ways than by holding votes.
In order to create a better understanding between me and the society, I would clearly state the two options, while adding as much neutral information as possible, state my opinion to the dilemma and explain how it would benefit the country as a whole and then open the vote.
In my opinion this sounds like a fair option, as the population should also have a say in the future of the country they are living in.
If I were the leader of a country, I would rather stay fully independent but have fewer security guarantees as if there was an economic crisis and I relied on other countries my country would be in economic ruin leading to problems in my country that could've been avoided by being independent. Alliances are also not as reliable as most people believe and I wouldn't want my country to solely rely on alliances as trust can be broken and my country would not be able to support itself if my alliances decided not to continue. I will be sacrificing some safety in numbers but if I am fully independent it is also harder to attack me as you cannot cut off my suppliers as they are all within my country.
If I were the leader of a country, I would rather belong to a strong alliance even if it meant losing some independence because of the security that it would provide me. Also, we can relate this to the topic we discussed last week which is aid, since belonging to a strong alliance could provide us aid from the countries that make up this group in case of crisis, as well as security for its people.
I also believe that losing some independence is a necesary sacrifice in order to rule a safe and economically stable country.
Well done for connecting the two topics together!
If I were the leader of a country, I would prefer to be part of a strong alliance but with boundaries that ensure the independence of my country too. In the modern world, issues of security threats, economic problems, and global crises are too complex for any country to solve alone. Being part of a strong alliance means that we can enjoy common defense, economic stability, and international power, which is essential for the protection of our citizens and the development of our country.
Being part of an alliance should not mean that we cannot make our own decisions. I would be part of an alliance that respects the values of my country, upholds human rights, and gives us the freedom to opt out of any activity that may work against our national interests.
This is important because security without independence will lead to control, while independence without security will lead to vulnerability. A balanced alliance will therefore ensure security while still allowing for responsible leadership and thinking.
After analyzing another student’s thought of allowing citizens to vote before making a decision, I appreciate this point. Nevertheless, I would handle this situation with caution since alliance decisions are associated with intricate security threats and national strategies that are not always clear to the general public. Although the general public should be made aware of the decision and their voices should be heard, I think the final decision should be made by weighing public opinion against national strategies.
If I were at the helm of a nation, I'd prioritize forging a robust alliance. The rationale behind this decision stems from the invaluable support allies can provide during times of adversity. They could offer shared resources like weaponry, essential equipment, and even deploy their own military personnel. Consider the predicament India found itself in back in 1971. They faced intense pressure from the United States, Pakistan, and China. Fortunately, Russia intervened to aid India, dispatching a fleet of ships armed with nuclear weapons to deter the U.S. and China from further action.
Imagine security as a neighbourhood where every house makes its own walls. Some of these houses are big and strong, while others are smaller and more vulnerable. Even the most privacy-obsessed small house depends on what is going on around it.
That's why I think that countries are better off if they are part of an alliance than if they are on their own. This is because the world is now faced with modern security challenges such as cyber attacks, economic coercion, disinformation campaigns, and local conflicts that are not limited by national boundaries. Security is no longer just about the size of your guns or your military prowess.
However, there is also a legitimate fear that if a country joins an alliance, it would then be forced to commit to decisions that it had no hand in making or would be forced to accept limitations on the decisions that it can make. Independence is an important aspect of a nation's identity.
However, total independence also comes at a great price because maintaining the highest level of defence, intelligence, and technological prowess on your own is an expensive business. But alliances must be entered into thoughtfully. They must not be static or create dependencies.
Therefore, the debate is not just between alliances and independence; it is also one of realising that in an interconnected world, security can actually promote sovereignty.
I hope that others share this point of view, and I look forward to hearing from others.
If I were a president of a country, I would rather belong to a strong alliance but lose some independence. If I am weak, why would I risk and be independent. I must have something like a shield to get protected in. My country citizens must live peacefully so why would I make a choice that can kill hundreds of the innocent lives just to be independent. In this situation, if I chose the other decision, I would be selfish in front of everyone and even myself. By the way, being helped by countries does not mean that I am weak and independent, yet it means that I am working on enhancing my economy to improve it to make my country stable after that I will stop getting help or aids from other countries gradually.
However, if I chose to be independent without any help or alliance, terrorists could have their chance to attack my country, and citizens will immediately migrate to other nearby countries. This can affect other countries negatively.
Depending on countries is like depending on your parents to walk and talk when you were a baby. You were weak when you were a baby, so you needed help but now you are depending on yourself consequently you do not need help anymore. Also, a country can be weak in a certain period of time so that it must rely on other countries then when the country becomes stable and strong, it can stop from taking aids from other countries.
To conclude, what I am trying to say is that a country is not always week and not always strong. A weak country will be strong one day and can be independent.
If I were the leader of a country, I would choose to be part of a strong alliance, even if it meant giving up a bit of independence.
Today, the world is interconnected, and problems can be complex, unpredictable and they can spread fast. Being in an alliance gives your country protection, trade partnerships, and more influence on the global stage.
Take NATO, for example. Its members follow the idea of collective defence — if one country is attacked, everyone helps. That makes it risky for anyone to pick a fight because they know they’re not facing just one country, but a whole group. Alliances like this create stability and make countries think twice before starting trouble.
That said, I’d personally prefer full independence if my country already had a strong military and a solid economy. Even without a formal alliance, if we had the trust and support of other strong countries, we could protect ourselves and still make our own decisions. Independence would then be realistic and smart, not risky.
But in general, with so many unpredictable problems out there, being in a strong alliance gives more safety and long-term stability than facing the world by ourselves.
If i were the leader of a country, i would rather belong to a strong alliance even if it meant that i would loose some indipendence. As an example of NATO, many countries have joined this strong alliance even tho they lost some of their independence. In my opinion they chose the right choice beacuse today being safe and have a good relationship with your neibourghood countries or countries in your continent is really important. If you join a strong alliance such as NATO is like be in the same team as someone else and there are some really good benefits about your country such as economic support and shared defense. So if i were the president of a country i would choose beign in a strong alliance for the reason i mentioned. I fell like that way my country would fell really safe.
The comparison is difficult and I think it depends on the conditions of the country.
If I was a leader in a rich, stable country, I would rather belong to stay fully independent but have fewer security guarantees. Independence can provide the freedom of decision-making; I would be able to have my own rules, and every choice would be mine and the people in the country.
In addition, independence can create long-term stability because the leader and citizens are the people who know very well what they need and must have a voice in the decisions in the country. But if there was a strong alliance, everything is going to be shared: the decisions, the money, the military equipment, and cultures and traditions.
Every region has its own traditions, and a leader knows them very well and is able to take decisions based on that. But if another leader was able to participate, he\she would choose what is suitable for his\her own country. This can reduce a leader's own voice.
However, if I was a leader in a poor country, I would rather belong to a strong alliance but lose some independence because SAFETY IS IN NUMBERS. Being part of a group can reduce some risk as the group members can protect each other. Also, resources can be shared, which would support the poor county. Independence may not be so important to poor countries; all what they need is sustainability.
If I were the leader of a country, I would rather belong to a strong alliance but lose some independence because it would make the country safer and more secure, which are very important. When a country has strong and reliable alliances, it doesn't have to face its problems alone, and other countries can help improve its social and economic situation in times of war, natural disasters or trouble. So this support can protect the citizens of the country and keep it stable.
Although the country couldn't make decisions by itself, it could work together with other countries and bring many benefits. They could share resources, trade more easily, and solve big problems that affect everyone.
In conclusion, keeping the citizens safe and ensuring peace are more important than having complete independence.
If I were a leader of a country, I would prefer belong to a strong alliance and lose some of my independence because having an alliance means that if my country were to have a crisis that my alliances would be able to help the country and provide aid,supplies and the resources needed.
If my country were to be attacked my alliances would help defend my country and provide protection,stability,military aid and security.
Alliances can benefit countries economically through trade partnerships,creating connections between countries and causing economic stability. Alliances can create peace within the communities of people living in that country.
I think that losing some of my independence is a necessary sacrifice and loss for the protection and safety of my people. Democracy makes sure that everyone has a voice and by providing protection through alliances, I am making sure that everyone within my country is being protected and has a safe living environment.
However , having independence rather than alliances means that my country needs to have a strong military and economy. We would then have no help and alliances to help us fight in war and provide aid in a crisis. We could still be able to protect ourselves through the support and trust of other countries without an alliance,but this would be quite risky and may not benefit the people.
In conclusion, My independence being taken away can greatly benefit the people of my country.
I think as a leader choosing between different types of international alliances is a major responsibility if I had to choose I would rather focus on an alliance that prioritize shared security and preventing conflict through diplomacy I believe that true strange for a country comes from having reliable partner who help each other during difficult time instead of working alone begin part of a group like NATO allows smaller countries to have a bigger voice and keeps the world more peaceful my choice would be to invest in this relationship so that we can solve global problems together rather than facing them by ourselves.
If I were the leader of a country, I would rather belong to a strong alliance but lose some independence because defence and teamwork is what will help us move forward to a better world with stronger friendships across continents and the whole world. If I am losing some independence, I'm only doing it to keep the people of my country safe and for them to put their trust and faith in me. Furthermore, having many alliances tied to my country would mean better guarantees of suffering minimal damage in security breaches and global crises.