Why a Strong Defense is Needed at All Times

Defenselessness

Machiavelli's statement that "being disarmed makes you despised" suggests that in order to gain respect and maintain authority, a prince or leader must have a strong and capable military force. In fact, it suggests that any society that is defenseless is almost like a crime against nature. However, his assertion certainly stands up to the historical test.

For instance, one historical example that supports his argument is the case of the Roman Empire. During the early days of the empire, the Roman military was known for its strength and efficiency, and the Roman legions were feared throughout the known world. This military might allowed the Roman Empire to expand its territory and maintain its dominance over its subjects. However, as the empire grew more decadent and complacent, its military strength declined, and it became vulnerable to external threats. In the end, the weakness of the Roman military was one of the factors that contributed to the collapse of the empire. Eventually, Rome was sacked—by Vandals and on and on until it was no more. What happened? Roman leaders turned away from what, according to Machiavelli, should have been their primary occupation: war. Says Machiavelli: “A prince, therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war, its institutions, and its discipline” (Jacobus 5). War is to be his single pursuit because he is a commander—and a commander cannot think of other things; other things are distractions that cause him to drop his guard and therefore risk the loss of power and command. Roman leaders became more occupied with themselves, it seems. Is not Nero known for fiddling while Rome burned? Such behavior smacks of self-indulgence. Defensive-minded leaders, on the other hand, would be springing to action to save the city.

So then how does one argue that things are any different in modern times? To do so, one would have to come at the claim from a different direction entirely. It might be done this way, for example: In modern society, defenseless is not always a disadvantage because in some countries strict gun control laws have led to lower rates of gun violence and fewer deaths (Kwon et al.). Additionally, there are many examples of countries that have pursued a policy of disarmament and have managed to maintain their security and influence through diplomacy and international cooperation.

Yet, let us also look at a country like Ukraine: it has had to beg for defense systems from the West in order to fight against Russia. If Ukraine had had a strong defense in the beginning would the war be ongoing today? It is worth asking. It is also worth noting that the cases of defenselessness discussed above are most likely the exception rather than the rule. In most cases, history seems to indicate that having a strong military force is essential for maintaining national security and projecting power in the international arena. It is what has allowed the US to become a major world power, after all. So while it is possible to argue that being defenseless can sometimes be an advantage, in general, Machiavelli's statement remains valid, and having a strong military force is crucial for any leader or nation that wishes to be respected and feared.