5 ms·
Where does this paranoia come from?
by 77pt77 7y ago
Where does this paranoia come from?
- hprotagonist 7y ago1648. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia
- mopsi 7y agohttps://i.imgur.com/HFmJJov.jpg https://i.imgur.com/HFmJJov.jpg See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Redoubt_%28Switzerland%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Redoubt_%28Switzerlan...
- ThePadawan 7y agoI always find it weird that Switzerland as a neutral, but financially involved country would be considered neither part of the Axis nor the Allies. They did supply weaponry to both sides.
- blotter_paper 7y agoSetting aside the highly relevant particulars of history mentioned in other replies, it's odd to me that every city isn't designed this way; we'd probably have less wars if they were. The main incentives for invading countries are 1) taking resources/land 2) travelling through to take other countries' resources/land and 3) self defense. If you aren't attacking anyone, and attacking you is more trouble than it's worth, you'll most likely be left alone.
- jhoechtl 7y agoFollowing your principle you mean the system of checking forces by fear was good? Like in the cold war aera?
- brigandish 7y agoThat's why it remained the Cold War and not the hot kind. Thomas Schelling can take a lot of the credit for formalising this kind of thinking.
- blotter_paper 7y ago<insert pedantic quibble about value judgements rabble rabble good v.s. good at averting wars> I think horizontal nuclear proliferation would make us (the US and others) less likely to invade other nations, and I would like to see a world where nuclear weapons are more evenly distributed so that we stop bombing so many children. I do see how my "more trouble than it's worth" line can be taken as leading into that, but I wasn't trying to go there even though I totally see it in retrospect. I think it's fair to note that this self-sabotage strategy can potentially make the entity employing it more trouble than it's worth to invade without becoming a threatening force. By making all of your tunnels and bridges useless in times of war, you're not a good route to other enemy lands. The more you're willing to burn, the less appealing it is to control you. What good is salted earth? If you additionally offer some economic benefits in trade, the chances of invasion go down even further... and you don't have to worry about provoking the enemy to attack out of fear. Honestly, I feel like nukes are a safer bet at deterrence, but I could be wrong. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The self-destruction model is certainly cheaper.
- mannykannot 7y agoThe Swiss method, unlike Mutually Assured Destruction, does not induce fear, and it it not intended to - it is intended to induce caution and self-interest in potential invaders.
- barry-cotter 7y agoHere is a complete list of countries in mainland Europe that have not been invaded or suffered a civil war since 1900. Switzerland Here is a complete list of Switzerland’s neighbours that have the same constitutional settlement as in 1940.
- i_am_proteus 7y agoTo paraphrase McPhee: the Swiss are determined to know how to wage war so that they might not.
- dasKrokodil 7y agoSi vis pacem, para bellum.
- C1sc0cat 7y agoWhen war became industrialised rather than boutique violence the swiss decided that being neutral was better. Up until then the swiss mercs had the rep of being the hardest Bastards out there
- rypskar 7y agoYou might be able to argue that Sweden isn't part of mainland Europe, but it would be really hard to argue that Liechtenstein is not part of it.
- bhaak 7y agoJust google "Liechtenstein invaded" and be surprised.
- barry-cotter 7y agoYou’re correct. The UK also had a civil war after WWI so mainland Europe is unnecessary. Complete list of European countries that haven’t been invaded or had a revolution since 1900 Liechtenstein, Sweden, Switzerland
- deleted 7y ago