Ozia, my argument is that true victory cannot be achieved with military engagements, our world is more connected today than it ever was and in order to win and also maintain the higher moral grounds it would help to not kill the people that are in disagreement with you and your cause but to convince them. And should that not work, you can always use diplomatic tools such as economic sanctions and propaganda.

Also, information/cyber warfare is a much more pertinent threat against an adversary today, than actual military combat. So basically, the tools of war have evolved and we need to get creative with how to best use them to our interest. Hope that's a bit clearer. .

How could it be your Achilles' heel when you just came up with such brilliant examples

Yes, it is true, and most particularly in the recent times, that war has messed up more than bear the fruits of victory. And let's say I write all these anti-war examples proving that war hasn't fulfilled the true meaning of victory and I give examples of failures of American war on Iraq, World War 1 and as pointed out by mhzz American wars in Veitnam and Afghanistan too. First I give examples of how fighting cannot guarantee a victory and now I have to give examples of how without fighting victory is ensured: countries winning over other countries without engaging in direct combats. Which takes us to the Cold War example and no other victory could be as complete as that one. But the problem is that's the only example.

On the contrary, victories as a result of fighting are abound: World War 2 which was a logical end of the strife created by WW1. And before that numerous Colonial conquests. Such complete victories are not really common in the modern history which is a point that goes against it. But the winners in those victories are still bearing its fruit, that is esp. true of the colonial conquests.

The essay topic is no doubt controversial given the variety of opinions it has generated the number of possibilities in which this topic could be interpreted and attempted. It is really interesting.

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

The atomic attack that was carried out against Japanese in WW2 is unlikely to be the case in modern times. Why? Answer is vibrant media and access to information unseen in past.

I beg to differ.
First,your arguments prove the point that instead of direct confrontation,countries should resort to modern tactics of war(like proxy,propaganda, economic sanctions and cyber warfare).Well,all this is part of fighting.it is fighting whether it is direct or indirect.that is why these tactics are called "proxy war" and "cyber warfare"

secondly,you have got to give a little more importance to the word "nations".Had the examiner used the word "armies" or even "countries", your argument could have been justified.
It is not about winning a war whether directly or indirectly..

I was just thinking yesterday that why somebody has not looked at the word "Nations'", and here it is. So in this analytical and argumentative essay you will define Great, Nations, Win, Fighting. Just one word left "without", also do its linguistic surgery. Come on people.

There are some points that are necessary to consider in relation with this topic. Following are historically proven facts that appeal to human nature, rationality and need of building forces.

At first place, War is an innate behavior that is further strengthened when nurturing by environment takes place. At every stage of life of an individual fights for rights in various forms of warfare.

At second place, like individuals, nations also pursue national interests and in pursuance of aims and objectives armed conflicts may take place. Certain factors like Nationalism, Religion, National Interests and Ideological superiority may lead to war.

At third place, history also supports the argument that no nation that has ever lived by-passed warfare or any armed conflict. First and foremost to consider is the Islamic state of Medina during the reign of Holy Prophet Muhammad PBUH. There is no denying the fact that the message of Muhammad PBUH was for peace and success of humanity but wars fought during the life time of Prophet PBUH and throughout the history of Rightly guided caliphs show a cause. Besides the genuine nature of cause one should not under estimate that Wars took place. Armed conflicts, psychological pressure and the military tactics grouped with strategic thinking of Muhammad PBUH by considering Bait e Rizwan, Treaty of Hudaybiyah, Battle of Uhud, Khandaq, Badar and conquest of Makkah are necessary to consider. In recent history of mankind, we see colonialism, imperialism and capitalism versus Communism. Although they may not be wars in strict sense but from a more general view these were the wars of ideologies, fights for rights of people, confrontation for ending class system that resulted due to Industrialization and Capitalism.

At fourth place, China is considered a great nation who has not indulged itself with War. This is not a correct picture. History has been biased if one considers that China has remained a war free nation. One fact must be considered in mind that when studying histories of nations we shall not limit ourselves to limited time frame of fifty or hundred years. More specifically for a nation like China that has a long record of events, more than 2000 years it would be an injustice to label China as a nation who has won without war. The nature and behavior of Chinese nation if considered from 1949 will be an over exaggeration. Chinese authors like Sun Tzu who has been an authority in the Art of War present a clear antithesis in this regard. One may think that warfare has changed or evolved. Twenty first century is not the age of guns and bullets or sophisticated tanks which Russia used some time ago but technological warfare is the mood of war in recent times. Modern world is the age of soft power which has been acquired by China. Furthermore, Chinese aspirations for Taiwan and other territories present a great example where China has utilized force and military power. Then, will it be possible to label China as a great nation who has won without war?

At fourth place, formation of military and establishment of arsenal is not for deterrence of defense. It has been the proven fact that defense can be used for offense and this transformation is covered with the name of national interest. In modern times, mostly debated and highly criticized, USA is considered.


To sum up, no nation can save itself from war! Pakistan can be considered in this connection. Military is engaged in FATA and Northern border. State has used military power and waged a full war on terrorism. Has Pakistan indulged in War on Terror by itself? Is the decision of using force against terrorist the last resort of government? Was wars with India allowed to win the disputed territory of Kashmir? Such questions need more efforts!

Was wars with india allowed to win the disputed territory of Kashmir??? Please elaborate

Pakistan indulged in war with India because of Kashmir and other factors like Crisis in East Pakistan etc. No fruitful results obtained besides heavy losses on both sides. War is inevitable! therefore no nation has saved itself from its scourge to till date.

So Pakistan didn't win with fighting....that's the topic great nations win without fighting.
Moreover 65' war was started by Pakistan by launching Operation Gibraltar in Kashmir

Fighting is inevitable! If Pakistan, as per your opinion, has not won the war with India but there are many other nations that have used warfare for national interests or a greater cause. So does it mean that they are not great?