Lol...Now that the purpose to create this very thread has been almost tarnished, time to add more views.

Still waiting for stronger arguments to prove the other side of the story i.e. great nations fight to win

I stick to - ' no no no - Nations must fight to win else they are not great '

topic is too broad..

Is there a single nation on earth which can be called great ? Every nation had a dark past that made them prioritize there needs and set their agenda .

After see the situation GAZA and Israil's bombardment on innocent Palestines its against Humanity and no great nation took any step than how call them great and who made them great nation.These are unable to call them great nations.

__________________
Few words are best.

The whole premise of this topic is on our interpretations of "The Great Nations". In my humble view Great Nations are those which do not seek greatness in imposing themselves on others, rather, they work hard for capacity building of themselves. One should try not to intermingle Great with powerful. Also, one is not expected to write on the premise that Great nations become great due to their policies.
One can counter argue as well. But, it should be like Great nations fight not in the battle fields but on other fronts.

sentence outline, My outline (few things may be missing as it is difficult to recall after 5 moths)
1.Desire for peace must be preceded by preparation for war
2.Modern weapons and technological innovation have made the war predictable with calculated consequences.
3. Today nations win by acquiring deterrence capabilities, like nuclear weapons and fear of mutually assured destruction.
4. Examples from life of Prophet (p.b.u.h), at the dawn of islam, muslims surviving by adopting peace accords i.e acceptance of treaty of hudebia despite of it being unfavorable to muslims.
5. Dialogue with india will not deliver positive reults unless pakistan is mountain strong. As Inidia is continuously refusing to hold dialogue on hard issues kashmir, water, sir creek.
6. Pakistan must modernize its nuclear weapons and enhance delivery capabilities to deter indian aggression.
7. dialogue with Taliban is not an option bcs they are expansionist and will not accept present nation state system.
8. improving Economy through tax collections and accountability for avoiding western dictation. This will provide resources for defence needs
9. Establishing writ of the state on all its territories.
10. conclusion: Peace should be the objective, its achievement by any means i.e dialogue and diplomacy or limited use of force.
My essay was focused on present challenges to pakistan and possiblity( if any) of their resolution on talking table ( i opposed unilateral concessions given to Indians and taliban). Outline was more impressive than original essay bcs of time constraint as i am slow writer.
[B]Dear all pls take time to comment, will be thankful.

Having skimmed through some rather interesting perspectives on what the correct approach to the essay "Great Nations Win without Fighting" could be, I would like to contribute my opinion to the matter.

To begin with, I did not attempt this essay in the exam because I somehow did not find it stimulating and challenging enough at the time, so I can be unbiased in giving my opinion on it as I would not subconsciously be defending "My Essay" as the correct approach.

I believe that the topic very clearly suggests two conditions:
1. Winning
2. No fighting

The aforementioned conditions, when met, would determine the greatness of a nation. Basically a "Great" nation (Note that great is not the same as good or civil or developed) is skilled in the art of overcoming an adversary without having to invest its military capabilities in the effort.

In this day and age, soft power has replaced the used of brute force in interstate or international clashes. Yes, there are still instances of violence being practised in many conflicts, but nary a soul would term an outcome from that as "great" since media reports show brutalities and death tolls in warzones which no sane human being would condone.

So, winning is no longer about subduing your enemy and having your way, it is doing so without attracting the condemnation of nations and peoples around the world.

I support your argument and approach

That is of course a good idea! And it sounds it should be this way that Great Nations should win without having to fight (directly and militarily). But think of the examples, how many are they? I could only think of the United States giving defeat to the Soviet Union without resorting to a direct military 'fight' with it.

__________________
He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow (Ecclesiastes 1:18)

Muslims of indian subcontinent carving a new country without a military fight

Russia safeguarding its naval base in syria by not letting USA launch an offensive against Assad regime

Asean members resolving disputes especially border issues without fighting

The greatest example as you quoted is that of Cold War which transformed the bipolar world into unipolar world