English 
Spanish 
3 min read
1 comments
Nations that rely on diplomacy and development to guarantee security are completely inconsistent?
In an increasingly militarized world, some countries have dared to take a different path: give up armies, navies and air forces and bet on diplomacy and international agreements to ensure their sovereignty. This bold choice allows them to allocate more resources to areas such as education, health e infrastructure, promoting the internal development and reinforcing its image of peaceful nations.
Oasis of Peace?: Meet the countries without armed forces
Discover 5 countries who live without army, marine ou Air Force, prioritizing the strengthening alliances and peaceful conflict resolution to guarantee your National security:
1 º Costa Rica: It abolished its armed forces in 1948 and redirected resources to education e health. It has the US support for your defense, if necessary.
- Donald Trump Wants to Bring Back Controversial “Remain in Mexico” Program — Understand the Devastating Impacts in the Americas
- Turkey surprises the world with Bayraktar KIZILELMA: supersonic unmanned fighter dominates the skies with AESA radar, revolutionary technology and success in historic flight test
- Legendary aircraft carrier for sale for a penny! The iconic 87.000-ton USS John F. Kennedy leaves history behind and heads for scrapping on her final mission
- Trump withdraws US from Paris Agreement for second time and expands use of fossil fuels: Climate, economic and geopolitical impacts shake the world
2 º Iceland: Without armed forces, it depends on the NATO for your safety, keeping only one Coast Guard civil for operations of search and rescue.
3 º Liechtenstein: Disbanded his army in 1868 for reasons financial and counts on the Switzerland to ensure your safety.
4 º Mônaco: There is a treaty with France, from 1918, to his defense, focusing on e finances, with an elevation difference of small police force for internal order.
5 º Panama: It disbanded its armed forces in 1990 and depends on the United States for your defense, according to the Torrijos-Carter Treaties.
When the absence of armed forces can be a risk
While the proposal for countries to give up armies, navies and air forces may seem admirable, this strategy also presents challenges and risks that cannot be ignored.
Some of these countries may find themselves in a position of vulnerability in the face of external threats, depending excessively on alliances e defense agreements that can be revealed unstable ou insufficient.
O Panama, for example, disbanded its armed forces in 1990 and became entirely dependent on the United States for your safety. This dependence can become a problem if there is changes in the priorities or political stability of the protecting power.
Similar situations may occur with other small and island countries, such as Kiribati e palau, who trust in the “goodwill” of larger nations to ensure their territorial integrity.
Furthermore, absence of armed forces can also compromise the responsiveness of these countries emergencies e natural disasters, limiting its autonomy in operations civil defense, search and rescue e maintenance of public order.
Is the army important for a nation?
So while the proposal for countries to give up armies may sound like a pacifist ideal, it is essential that these States carefully evaluate the risks e challenges associated with this strategy, seeking solutions that balance financial security e development in a sustainable way.
What do you think of this security approach adopted by some countries? Is the absence of armed forces really a viable solution or a dangerous risk?
No bloodsucking military men to drain the finances and destabilize politics.
And another thing: for these small countries in Central America, for example, externally nothing changes! Or does anyone really believe that another power other than the US has an interest in intervening in them, or that at the time they had armed forces, they would have had any conditions to confront these same Americans? 😏 lol