Do Not Have a Standing Army? An Overview of Benefits and Risks
Over 18 countries in the world do not maintain a permanent standing army, yet they rely on police forces for domestic security and some international alliances for external defense. This article explores the advantages and disadvantages of such a military strategy, with a particular focus on the financial implications and the potential need for external support.
Financial Benefits of Not Having a Standing Army
The primary advantage of not maintaining a standing army is the significant reduction in financial burden. Military personnel, equipment, and maintenance are among the most expensive line items in any national budget. Without a standing army, countries can redirect these funds towards other critical areas such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure development. As a result, governments can allocate more resources to enhance the overall quality of life for their citizens.
Reliance on External Alliances for Defense
A significant drawback of not having a standing army is the reliance on external alliances for defense. Countries without a standing army are often part of international military pacts, such as NATO, the UN, or regional arrangements. This means that if a country faces an external threat, it relies on these alliances to provide protection. For instance, Israel, despite its own military capabilities, relies on the U.S. for defense, particularly in times of military engagement.
The Costs and Benefits of Opting Out
The decision to not have a standing army comes with a trade-off of financial and strategic risks. While the financial savings are substantial, the potential loss of strategic autonomy and the reliance on external support can be detrimental. For a country to truly benefit from not having a standing army, it must ensure that its neighbors and international partners are reliable and willing to provide defense when needed.
A notable example is the case of Norway and Sweden, both of which have chosen not to maintain a large standing army. Instead, they rely on NATO and the U.S. for defense. However, this approach requires a continuous and dependent relationship with these external powers, which can be unpredictable and may not always be in the best interest of the country.
The Role of the National Police
For countries without a standing army, a well-funded and well-equipped national police force is often sufficient for internal security. This allows for a more decentralized approach to defense, where the police handle most security matters, and external threats are dealt with through alliances. This strategy also allows for savings on expensive military hardware such as planes, tanks, and ships. However, the effectiveness of this approach depends on the trust and capabilities of the national police force.
Conclusion
The decision to not have a standing army is a complex one that requires careful consideration of a country's strategic needs and economic resources. While financial savings are a significant benefit, the potential risks of external reliance and the strategic limitations of a national police force must also be taken into account. For countries that truly believe in collective security and trust in their international partners, the benefits of not having a standing army can outweigh the drawbacks.