Is it a sign of weakness for a country to be neutral?

Asked by: Atlas01
  • I do think it is because...

    ... Being neutral means that you rely on other countries to accept your neutrality and to protect your neutrality. So, in other words, you need other countries to accept what you are in order to be what you are, il you follow me. A neutral country is nothing without on its own, which weakness to my eyes.
    But I think it's also important to say here that most of the countries that are neutral, are neutral, not by choice but by necessity.

  • The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis. (Dante Alighieri)

    A country must act against wrong acts committed by other countries, otherwise it will be perceived as weak because of inaction. Inaction means that you tolerate the evil. For instance, you have two friends fighting each other and decided not take part, but you see your bigger and stronger friend is beating badly your other friend to the point that latter died. In that example, your neutrality cost the life of your weak friend who could have saved by your intervention. Clearly, a country cannot remain neutral in times of crisis.

  • Quite the Opposite

    Neutral powers, choose not to take sides, joining all the world alliance, in most cases they have a modestly strong army capable of defending their borders not designed for invading other countries. Or are simply to weak to be militarily significant on the world stage. They focus on there own people not the worlds problems.

  • It's called negotiating.

    Sometimes it's better just to stay neutral. In certain cases you may be able to consider it a sign of weakness, but yet I don't thinks that's the right word to describe it. That word should be cowardliness; weakness has too many alternate meanings. Although I'm generally no for this. If God communicates to a nation, whether most of them are atheist or not, to go into battle, we must obey and fix the mistakes of our past. Consent him when everything is going well even more then when it's going bad.

  • Swizzerland is one of the strongest countries in the world

    The swizz have more power than the british and french combined. Why you might ask, they are one of the richest countries in the worlds and have some powerful allys like the germans the strongest force in europe. As well the swiss have enough money to buy anyting from soldeirs to weapons

  • Neutral Countries are not weak

    To be neutral is not a sign of weakness in my opinion, for example during WW2 thousands of Jews from Germany and occupied European countries fled before the occupation to the neutral countries such as Sweden, Switzerland and the US (which was neutral at the start). Countries such as Sweden and Switzerland simply do not have the ability to go into conflict at the time and they served a different role, and an important role at that, if it wasn't for their neutrality thousands more would have died as a result, it was somewhat of a safe haven.

  • Neutrality is not weakness

    Neutrality means you don't want to take part in a conflict because you don't believe the outcome is worth your efforts. Nations have been known to stay neutral on different topics for MANY different reasons. It can, on occasion, be a sign of weakness; but neutrality and weakness are not synonymous.

  • Not necessarily so

    If a country declares neutrality there are plenty of reasons as to why they choose to do so. Possibly for economic concerns or internal development within the country. However, weakness in military terms is still a factor of possibility. Neutrality is practically a way to avoid any unwanted pestilence within a country. It can be used to protect the populace and preserve the economic structure of the nation (this is not an absolute guarantee though).

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.