3 ms·

A counterexample: Costa Rica (where I'm from). We haven't had an army for the last 70 years and still remain a country. Superpowers (e.g., US, China, Russia) mi

A counterexample: Costa Rica (where I'm from). We haven't had an army for the last 70 years and still remain a country. Superpowers (e.g., US, China, Russia) might need armies as means of mutual deterrence. Smaller countries not so much.

tlow 8y ago
This appears to be false. > So, Who Protects Costa Rica? Costa Rica maintains its military-free status and does not command any military units or house any war weapons. However, the country does maintain alliances with other countries, such as the United States, that can be expected assist in the event of war within Costa Rica. https://qcostarica.com/costa-ricas-military-abolition-history-who-protects-costa-rica/ https://qcostarica.com/costa-ricas-military-abolition-histor...
- dguaraglia 8y ago
  Hm... not exactly sure how your quote stating that Costa Rica maintains a military-free status falsifies the grandparent's comment stating exactly the same.
  - albntomat0 8y ago
    It doesn't directly falsify the fact that Costa Rica lacks a military, but shows that their solution does not scale in a useful manner. Edit: It directly contradicts the usage of the claim that small countries do not need a military. Essentially borrowing deterrence from another doesn't result in the world being military free.
  - leetcrew 8y ago
    it doesn't directly rebut the post, but the poster you are responding to is emphasizing that costa rica is only able to maintain their military-free status by allying with one of the most powerful militaries in the world. it's probably a good thing that not every country in the world needs to maintain a full-scale military, but this only works if you have a powerful ally whom you can trust to defend you. the fact that costa rica is able to exist without a military doesn't imply that the US could also disband their military.
gonmf 8y ago
And the next time there is a large scale conflict, some neighbour country may feel tempted to use that opportunity to send a single division to your country and absorb it. Then you can say how wonderful it is to save a fraction of a percentage point of your GDP on defence and how it worked so well until the day it was needed.
- dguaraglia 8y ago
  That argument could be made about pretty much any small country using a superpower as the "neighbor". Take for example Russia annexing Crimea. At the end of the day, it isn't the presence of a military that makes the difference, but the strength and spread of the country's treaties with other nations.
  - albntomat0 8y ago
    But at the end of the day, somebody still needs to spend money on a military. Being put under the umbrella of the US/Russia/China/etc just alters where it is based out of, and makes you vulnerable to the demands of those that provide it.
  - Grue3 8y ago
    >spread of the country's treaties with other nations. Ukraine example shows that treaties are worthless. Neither USA nor UK did anything to protect its territorial integrity as they agreed upon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
    - nradov 8y ago
      A memorandum is specifically not a treaty.
dba7dba 8y ago
Costa Rica is not next to russia or north korea.
dwheeler 8y ago
I did specifically note that it's okay if your country doesn't have a military, as long as your country has an ally with a military. I guess I should add if there's absolutely no threat then you also don't need a military - but that's a rare situation. "Countries Without Militaries" by Kathy Gilsinan (Nov 11, 2014) at https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/countries-without-militaries/382606/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/co... specifically discusses the case of Costa Rica: "After 7,000 U.S. servicemembers deployed to the country in 2010 to assist in counter-narcotics efforts, Bolivian President Evo Morales said Costa Rica did have an army: the United States military." Indeed, that articles notes a lot of the complexities when you dive in. The vast majority of countries have obvious militaries, and of the rest, "Virtually all the countries the CIA lists as having no formal militaries have some form of security service, and the degree to which they focus exclusively on internal threats varies". If there's absolutely no threat then you don't need a military, but for the vast majority of countries, that is not reality.

tlow 8y ago

This appears to be false. > So, Who Protects Costa Rica? Costa Rica maintains its military-free status and does not command any military units or house any war weapons. However, the country does maintain alliances with other countries, such as the United States, that can be expected assist in the event of war within Costa Rica. https://qcostarica.com/costa-ricas-military-abolition-history-who-protects-costa-rica/ https://qcostarica.com/costa-ricas-military-abolition-histor...

dguaraglia 8y ago
Hm... not exactly sure how your quote stating that Costa Rica maintains a military-free status falsifies the grandparent's comment stating exactly the same.
- albntomat0 8y ago
  It doesn't directly falsify the fact that Costa Rica lacks a military, but shows that their solution does not scale in a useful manner. Edit: It directly contradicts the usage of the claim that small countries do not need a military. Essentially borrowing deterrence from another doesn't result in the world being military free.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  it doesn't directly rebut the post, but the poster you are responding to is emphasizing that costa rica is only able to maintain their military-free status by allying with one of the most powerful militaries in the world. it's probably a good thing that not every country in the world needs to maintain a full-scale military, but this only works if you have a powerful ally whom you can trust to defend you. the fact that costa rica is able to exist without a military doesn't imply that the US could also disband their military.

gonmf 8y ago

And the next time there is a large scale conflict, some neighbour country may feel tempted to use that opportunity to send a single division to your country and absorb it. Then you can say how wonderful it is to save a fraction of a percentage point of your GDP on defence and how it worked so well until the day it was needed.

dguaraglia 8y ago
That argument could be made about pretty much any small country using a superpower as the "neighbor". Take for example Russia annexing Crimea. At the end of the day, it isn't the presence of a military that makes the difference, but the strength and spread of the country's treaties with other nations.
- albntomat0 8y ago
  But at the end of the day, somebody still needs to spend money on a military. Being put under the umbrella of the US/Russia/China/etc just alters where it is based out of, and makes you vulnerable to the demands of those that provide it.
- Grue3 8y ago
  >spread of the country's treaties with other nations. Ukraine example shows that treaties are worthless. Neither USA nor UK did anything to protect its territorial integrity as they agreed upon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
  - nradov 8y ago
    A memorandum is specifically not a treaty.

dba7dba 8y ago

Costa Rica is not next to russia or north korea.

dwheeler 8y ago

I did specifically note that it's okay if your country doesn't have a military, as long as your country has an ally with a military. I guess I should add if there's absolutely no threat then you also don't need a military - but that's a rare situation. "Countries Without Militaries" by Kathy Gilsinan (Nov 11, 2014) at https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/countries-without-militaries/382606/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/co... specifically discusses the case of Costa Rica: "After 7,000 U.S. servicemembers deployed to the country in 2010 to assist in counter-narcotics efforts, Bolivian President Evo Morales said Costa Rica did have an army: the United States military." Indeed, that articles notes a lot of the complexities when you dive in. The vast majority of countries have obvious militaries, and of the rest, "Virtually all the countries the CIA lists as having no formal militaries have some form of security service, and the degree to which they focus exclusively on internal threats varies". If there's absolutely no threat then you don't need a military, but for the vast majority of countries, that is not reality.