Introduction / Context:
This strategic-policy question weighs national security imperatives against economic opportunity costs and diplomatic considerations. We must mark the arguments that are strong as framed.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Security environment features adversaries modernizing capabilities.
- Nuclear deterrence relates to sovereignty and territorial integrity.
- Development spending and diplomacy are important but cannot substitute for credible deterrence when threats are real.
Concept / Approach:
A strong argument shows necessity and direct relevance to the core objective (national security). Weak arguments rely on absolute trade-offs or speculative consequences without accounting for strategic realities.
Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Strong. Deterrence logic supports capability parity to prevent coercion and preserve sovereignty.II: Weak. Development is vital, but security and development are not mutually exclusive; defence is a core public good.III: Weak. Isolation is speculative and context-dependent; many states maintain nuclear capabilities while sustaining economic ties.IV: Weak. World peace as an aspiration does not negate the need for credible deterrence; responsible stewardship can coexist with peace advocacy.
Verification / Alternative check:
Deterrence theory emphasizes capability and credibility; opportunity cost alone is insufficient to reject essential defence spending.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options including II–IV elevate weak or speculative reasoning; “All are strong” clearly overstates.
Common Pitfalls:
Assuming a strict guns-versus-butter dichotomy; ignoring the role of deterrence in securing conditions for development.
Final Answer:
Only I is strong
Discussion & Comments