Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli. Specifically,

¶ … Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli. Specifically, it will argue the disadvantage of being defenseless or helpless in the face of attack. Machiavelli says, "A man who wishes to make a vocation of being good at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good" (Machiavelli 37). Thus, he sets the stage for his arguments that defense is entirely necessary for a successful nation and a successful ruler, and defenselessness only leads to weakness and commonality. The defense of a nation is of prime importance, and a defenseless nation is simply asking for difficulties and aggression. Defenselessness is not pacifism, nor is it a wise decision for a ruler. In fact, defenselessness is suicide in the strictest sense of the word.

Machiavelli's ideas on defense and war may have been written centuries ago, but they are still relevant today. The world is violent, and it always has been. In his writing, Machiavelli notes a ruler, "Must never raise his thought from this exercise of war, and in peacetime he must train himself more than in time of war" (Machiavelli 38). This idea can easily be applied to the modern fear of terrorism around the world. Countries must be armed and vigilant to prevent terrorism from occurring, and they must react quickly when it does. This makes defensive strategy a key item in fighting global terrorism. Not only must a nation be vigilant, it must be armed in order to protect itself at all times, and this is what Machiavelli is referring to in his work. A ruler who cannot anticipate the defense of his country is not a wise leader, and probably will not remain in power for long. Someone with more foresight and a bigger army will push him aside and take over, making an example of Machiavelli's words.

Is Machiavelli wrong about defense in a modern society? While it might seem his ideas are outmoded and even cynical, there are many modern examples of nations who see defense as the key to their survival and growth in an ever-changing world. For example, nations such as North Korea, Iran, and India feel the need to increase their arsenals to include nuclear weapons, a clear statement about their belief in defending themselves at all costs. Other nations have responded to this show of aggression and defense by beefing up their own arsenals while attempting to create a dialogue to keep these weapons of mass destruction under control. (Japan, for example, is expected to beef up its own national defenses in case of North Korean aggression, and many nations have created sanctions against North Korea because of their nuclear weapons testing).

Thus, North Korea is attempting to become a world leader with their aggression, while Japan is showing its vulnerability because of its long-standing lack of major defensive capabilities. The defenselessness of a nation simply makes it vulnerable to other nations who have aggressive tendencies, and to leave a nation defenseless is to head it toward disaster. Therefore, Machiavelli's policies are still relevant today, as much as many might not care to admit. Defense is the core of a strong nation, and it is the foundation of a strong leader. Without it, a nation has little but diplomacy to fall back on, and that can be overthrown or overruled in a second.

Machiavelli maintains that a leader who is defenseless is also hated or despised. He also maintains that princes and leaders are judged on a higher level, and they must live up to these higher standards. A leader who leaves his country defenseless and therefore open to aggression is a weak leader who does not understand the necessity to remain strong at all times. In peacetime, a ruler many not rely on continued aggression, but he must still maintain a trained and well-equipped army that is ready to fight at once. A leader who does not anticipate aggression from others is not only weak, but also unrealistic. The beginning of the Second World War in Europe is an excellent example. Hitler was an aggressive, dominant leader who was revered by many Germans. He overtook Poland and other nations such as Norway with virtually no defense at all because they were unprepared and their leaders did not anticipate or approve of aggression and defense. They were wrong, and it cost them dearly. If these nations had put up a real fight, the war might have had a different outcome. The same is true of the Holocaust. For the most part, most victims did not fight back, and offered little resistance as they were moved first to Jewish ghettos and then concentration camps. Had they risen up as a group and defended themselves, their fate might have been different as well.

Hitler was not a hero, or even a respected world leader, but those around him were weak, and that led to their downfall. A good leader is defensive, but also prudent, and that is one thing Hitler was not. His dreams of world domination and his extermination of the Jews showed him to be inhumane and imprudent, which, even though he used aggression, led to his downfall and the downfall of the Nazi party. Machiavelli even addresses this situation. He writes, "But when the prince is with his armies and has under his command a multitude of troops, then it is absolutely necessary that he not worry about being considered cruel; for without that reputation he will never keep an army united or prepared for any combat" (Machiavelli 44). This proved to be the case with Hitler, who lost control of the war and his army before the war in Europe ended. Hitler led his country down the wrong path, and he literally committed suicide in the end. He is proof that unbridled aggression is not the answer, but defense and preparation are indeed the way to manage a successful nation and lead effectively.

Machiavelli also makes an interesting observation that those who are defenseless are common, while those who are effective at war are not. A private citizen can rise to power as a leader if he anticipates aggression and applies himself to an active defense. This has been the case with many of the nation's most loved leaders, including George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, Dwight Eisenhower, and Teddy Roosevelt. They were all effective military leaders who had successful military careers before they became politicians. Because of their leadership qualities and their attention to defense and war, they became effective leaders who knew the value of maintaining defense. They also led the country through times of peace that ended up being times of defensive strategy, such as the Cold War during Eisenhower's leadership. They proved the need for continued defense of the nation even in peacetime, and showed how a leader can rise to the top with the ability to defend and conquer others.