Question

Debate: Can collective security work?

Collective security is the cooperation of several countries in an alliance to strengthen the security of each.

..I need points for the yes and no side because i need to compare them. thanks in advance :)

Answer 1

I can help with one relatively recent example -- NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

NATO started out as a defense alliance between the US and Western Europe during the Cold War. Countries like the UK and France shared defensive information and technology with their allies such as the United States and vice versa.

But the Soviets weren't to be undone and came up with the Warsaw Pact which was an alliance of aligned nations in Eastern Europe. Though they didn't necessarily have as open a relationship as NATO did with its members, the Soviets basically created a huge buffer between themselves and the West in which they could place troops and defensive forces much like NATO could.

The good thing about these alliances was that it created a sort of standoff between both sides. Neither the Soviets or the US were eager to get into a fight, and Europe certainly didn't want one since nukes might go flying around in their backyards first.

As for a bad example of an alliance being more trouble than it was worth, the short answer is to look at WW1. Austria-Hungary invaded Serbia after provocation. That triggered Russia to mobilize in order to defend its interests with Serbia. That gave Germany the excuse to mobilize its own forces to fight Russia, but first they went after France in a bid to knock them quickly out of the war to avoid one on two fronts. It turned into a huge, bloody, trench-stuck stalemate.

One big difference between the alliances WW1 and NATO/Warsaw Pact was that the countries in WW1 feared artillery and bullets -- not the threat of nuclear annihilation.