Neutrality unless attacked is best for a country.

You say that neutrality did not work in either World War, but in fact, it worked very well. Let me guide you through a history of neutrality in the United States from its conception to present day. After the revolution, the United States was a weak colonial backwater, nothing like the huge military power it is today. The leaders developed a strategy in world affairs that they would stay out of European affairs. If the United States took a side in any major issue, it could risk an invasion that it would surely not survive. This did not mean that the United States could not trade with other countries; in fact, it was quite the opposite. While European countries entangled themselves with alliances, the United States got to reap the benefits of unsuspected trade with all nations. The United States was able to focus all its energies inward while still taking in all the befits of trade with other countries and by the time of World War I, it had became close to the equal of any European nation. The US was able to prosper while the European countries got themselves stuck in costly wars and suffered from lack of trade with enemies. World War I would have been a war between two countries if it were not for the fact that all the European countries were forced to fight with one of the two countries at war because they had alliances with one or the other. The US, however was neutral and by the German U boats hit a US ship, both sides in the war had worn themselves out fighting. The US was able to come in and win the war with minimal casualties gaining the benefits of winning a war, better standing among world affairs, resources from the defeated countries, and a reputation as a strong country that could not be pushed aside easily. In between the two world wars there was a great depression, but it was caused by many other things and the US had not stopped trade with other countries. First of all the stock market crash was caused by the Fed increasing interest rates. The crash caused people to hoard money and be wary when it came to spending, this in turn led to banks not having enough money to pay back all the people who put their money in it and people lost all their money, which scared other people and made them hoard money and so on. At the time, the amount of money circulating also depended on the amount of gold that the United States had because it had to back 100% of money with gold. The Swoot-Hawley Tarriff act, passed in 1930, also put huge taxes on goods and hurt the economy even more. There was also high income-inequality. Those were the causes for the great depression, neutrality had nothing to do with it. (http://www.amatecon.com...) When World War II came the United States sat back, enjoying trade from all while, they suffered from fighting. When the United States was attacked, it responded powerfully and was again regarded as a hero and fighter for World liberties. Recently however, the United States has changed its policy from neutrality to starting costly, draining wars in Vietnam and Iraq. Now, other countries, which have been focusing inward, are catching up, in economy, are ahead of us in health care and life expectancy, and are increasing the generals standards of life to their inhabitants. Our reputation in the world has been tarnished and we do not have the money to pay for reform in health care and increasing the standard of life. Our economy is tanking and the government is in debt. If we had stayed with neutrality, our country would have been better off. The US has been a lot better off ending wars then it has been starting them. Any threat to a country would have to have some operations inside the country that is being attacked or it would not work and it is hard for one country to have better intelligence about what is happening inside another country then the country itself. Not to mention, you can still get intelligence from countries without being in an alliance with them. Any attack on the country that does not have a cell inside the country would have to have a foreign link and that would be an act of war, which would be a reason to invade. Neutrality is not the same thing as seclusion. Neutrality is not taking sides in wars or alliances while seclusion is not interacting with other countries at all. You can trade with countries and be neutral at the same time.