Talk:List of countries without armed forces

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2006 press source article for details. The citation is in: Fabricio Soza. "Desarmados hasta los dientes", Clarín (newspaper), 2006-12-12.

This non-article page is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of countries without armed forces article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

I thought American Samoa wasn't fully independent. I will remove it later if no one responds. Falphin 19:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Why is Japan here? 2 Vatican? 3 Update 4 Update 5 Source 6 Anti-nuclear constitutions 7 Nauru 8 Dependent Areas 9 Cleanup 10 Micronation 11 Liechtenstein 12 The Cook Islands and Niue 13 San Marino 14 For future reference Eastern Caribean(independent states) are under the RSS. 15 Japan 16 Maldives 17 Armed forces? 18 Barbados

[edit] Why is Japan here?

They still have a military.

-G

Also, whoever added it forgot to update the country counts. Pbevin 21:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sending troops to support the 2003 invasion of Iraq is no "self-defence", "peacekeaping" nor "internal conflicts", I can tell.

Could someone please explain why Japan is on this list?

--190.48.106.236 00:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vatican?

100 people in the Swiss Guard, but the population's only 925... Per capita, I'd think that'd be hypermilitarized, not lacking an army. 209.6.230.71 03:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point of view ! They still have a police mission, not a military one ! CB

They use military ranks apperently. Military units have often been tasked with police missions in the past. What do they define themselves as? ---130.208.189.147 21:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Hello, I've been working on the matter for some time ! Western Samoa is not american Samoa, though indeed they are neighbours ! CB

[edit] Update

It's Samoa, not Western Samoa. The name change occurred in 1998.

Thanks, good info ! CB

[edit] Source

"Palau - The only country with an anti-nuclear constitution". Source, please. I believe Germany, Japan and Brazil also have anti-nuclear Constitutions. Doidimais Brasil 18:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Brazil, an "anti-nuclear" republic? You must be kidding, with all nuclear plants the Brazilian state has. And I'm reading the whole German constitution and it doesn't seem an "anti-nuclear" one. So, if you want sources, why you don't show 'em? --Nkcs 03:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand decleared itself Nuclear free in 1985. No Nuclear weapons or power is allowed in New Zealand --dmmd123 03:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-nuclear constitutions

For Japan : The constitution article 9, stipulatse that the country shall have no army, though it does. There was a debate, and I think a succesfull one, to ask USA not ot come in Japan with Nuclear weapons, but I am uncertain. However, there is nothing in the constitution. For germany : I do not know for the constitution for sure. But I doubt it. The nuclear power plants, though bound to be shut in 2020 (and no new ones build) are still in function. And US had, if not has, nuclear weapons stationned there. For Brazil : I have no clues. It wouldn't take that long to read these three texts, and to control if the ascertion I made, based on documents regarding Palau being the only state with an anti-nuclear constitution, is correct or not. Just now I lack the will or the time. But I am open to any details. Thank you. CB

The Army of Japan is charged only with national defense duties; although the Constitution literally prohibits the right to initiate a war, it doesn't deny the obligation to defend a country. And neither Brazil and Germany have "anti-nuclear" constitutions, please include sources if you think so! --ShiningEyes 04:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Besides prohibiting the right to wage war, or to use war in international realtions, the Japanese constitutions (article 9, paragraph 2) clearly stipulates no armed forces, no navy, no air force. The gorvernement has been violating it's own consitution for half a century or so. Predsently if I am right, Japan has the third biggest military bidget in the world. The right to defend, is vested in the United Nations charter, but there is no say on whith witch means. It can be civil defence ! CB

The Palau constitution is availbale on the net. CB http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/pau28362.pdf

[edit] Nauru

The possibility of Nauru having an "unformal" agreement with Australia is slim. I'd like to know more about this. However, it is very seldom that governements enter into "unformal" agreements. There is too much uncertainety, and one way or the other, they do not lack lawyers to do the job. On the other hand, there has been strong ties between Nauru and Australia, the later establishing refugee camps in Nauru, i.e. So a military defence agreement is not unlikely. Really, Id' like to know the source of this info. And I leave the page unchanged till confirmation is given. Thank you. CB

I'll second that. That "informal agreement" caught my eye - very unusual in International Relations, unless it's a secret one, but a secret defense treaty makes no sense. Nicolasdz 18:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dependent Areas

I went ahead and removed any items on the list that are not sovereign and independent in and of themselves. I also removed Sealand from the list because its status is disputed. See: List of sovereign states. D. Wo. 05:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

User:Roitr has been going around adding some pretty outrageously inaccurate stuff, so this needs a cleanup. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Micronation

How about micronations? -- Zondor 00:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Micronations are not countries, read both articles. --Nkcs 02:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liechtenstein

According to the page on Liechtenstein their defense is the responsibility of Switzerland: "since the Army was disbanded in 1868, Defense is also the responsibility of Switzerland." -- Sölvi Úlfsson 17:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainely not, as SWitzerland is premanently neutral, it can not defend another country. CB

Well, the CIA's World Factbook has this to say:

defense is the responsibility of Switzerland

However, I haven't been able to find anything more authoritative than this. Silverhelm 15:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC).

The CIA factbook is simply wrong. Yes, as horrible as it seems. I am Swiss, am a lawyer and after reading some of the wiki articles simply had to find out more about this. Found nothing. Not even on this page here. I shall dig through the UniGE law library once the opportunity presents itself (best law library this side of the Alps), but I fear the CIA factbook is wrong. ~Michael

• Apparently, I have to insist. Switzerland is NOT responsible for Liechtenstein's defence. Switzerland cannot even move troops through the country, as testified by this here event. The CIA Factbook is wrong, plain and simple. ~Michael, the unhappy Swiss lawyer. Message left on 03/03/2007

[edit] The Cook Islands and Niue

Both the Cook Islands and Niue are formally sovereign, and so belong in this list. I have therefore edited it to reflect this.

New Zealand's responsibility for their defence is required by an Act of Parliament, and is also entrenched in the other two countries' constitutions; but there is nothing to prevent any of these countries from unilaterally deciding to take the legal steps necessary to put an end to the arrangement.

Silverhelm 15:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC).

They may be formally sovereign, but not "fully". Until they are, then they will be treated like any other place under another nation's control.That-Vela-Fella 22:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] San Marino

Should it be here? It seems to have an army, just one that can't do much because of the country's small size... --Imajin 00:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Their military Corpi MIlitari Uniformati appearently consist of Corpo della Gendarmeria, Guardia di Rocca, Compagnia Uniformata delle Milizie and Guardia del Consiglio. Of these units the Compagnia Uniformata delle Milizie is no doubt a military unit. Meanwhile the other ones might be more described as para-military perhaps. But this opens up the question, are countries with official military forces that aren't very big or modernly armed, without armed-forces? And are countries officially without armed forces but have a big warfighting capabilites resting in their large and capable para-military forces, truly without armed forces? In fact I believe all of these countries have armed forces. Every sovereign country has at least a single policeman with a club or stick or a baton or some weapon and are thus armed. But that might not necessarily mean that this list is worthless, it simply needs to be more clearly defined. ---130.208.189.147 19:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I also agree since they got a budget for it, as listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures That-Vela-Fella 21:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For future reference Eastern Caribean(independent states) are under the RSS.

Just for future reference the independent states of the Eastern Caribbean area under the CDERA and the RSS. Not- the United States.

• Caribbean Disaster Emergency Response Agency
• Regional Security System

CaribDigita 22:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japan

Japan only has self-defence forces which only engage in peacekeaping operations and in internal conflicts. --GoOdCoNtEnT 04:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

===>Good point It's constitutional. They should be on here. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 05:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

How can you say Japan does not have armed forces? It has one of the biggest militaries in the in its region (not to mention spending). Are we just engaging in sophistry by saying it has no armed forces. Does the Japanese Self Defence Force just carry around broomsticks? 60.226.236.214 12:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We should mention in the introduction that this is a list of countries that formally doesn't have armed forces. Japan certainly has, though the SDF is formally not military. "only engage in peacekeaping operations and in internal conflicts" doesn't really matter either. So does Sweden, but nobody claims that Sweden doesn't have armed forces. --Apoc2400 11:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And as I said above (sorry I just saw this) I'm having a hard time trying to understand how invading Iraq can possible be a "self defense/peacekeeping/internal conflict resolution". So unless Japan have sent boy scouts to Iraq they to have armed forces and they actually invaded a foreign country with them; so why are we keeping Japanese "Self Defence" Forces on this list? Doesn't make any sense. --190.48.106.236 00:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Japan DIDN'T INVADE IRAQ. If you actually read the article on their deployment, then you'll see their presence was focused on reconstruction. They had soldiers there to protect the workers.--Kross^Talk 01:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What about listing Japan somewhere on the page, with a special note that while Japan formally has no standing military and only "self-defense forces" (about which constitutional debates are ongoing in Japan right now), in actuality it has one of the largest defense budgets in the world and has sent troops on out-of-area missions, albeit in a peacekeeping/peacemaking role... Nicolasdz 18:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fact is that Japan has a de-facto military forces, even if its offical legal description might state otherwise. In this list we have both countries with official military forces that are so small that they aren't considered armed forces here and countries with de facto armed forces not described as such. So which is the description for countries without armed forces in this article? --130.208.189.147 19:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maldives

Do these islands really belong here? According to the CIA world factbook they spend $45.07 million on military matters or 5.5% GDP which is more than most NATO nations even. And they have "National Security Service: Security Branch (ground forces), Air Element, Coast Guard" According to the CIAWFB and according to wikipedia "On 21st April 2006, during ceremony of its 114th anniversay the NSS was renamed as the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF)." And it certainly looks like a military...... --130.208.189.147 14:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armed forces?

I find this article to be poorly conceived. Armed forces should include the military of those countries which have as their stated aims a defensive rôle.

I have included this chart to present to you the folly of including Japan in this article. Any discussion? Ozdaren 12:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also the name "Armed forces." Is there any country that doesn't have an armed police? A band of policemen with rifles would be and have been used for defence against external threats over history. Perhaps it would be better to term it countries without standing armies. And Japan certainly has armed forces, even though they are few in numbers. Even Iceland has a de facto army although not many would like to admit that... -130.208.189.147 16:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barbados

Barbados' "military" unit is called the Barbados Defense Force - while not constitutionally prevented from warfare (their true capabilities are a state secret) they as a unit have never taken part in any wars since independence. If Japan is on this list, then Barbados should be as well.

Actually no. Japan doesn't have a military officially, but has one in reality. Barbados seems to have an official military no matter how puny or useless it may or may not be. --130.208.189.147 19:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Barbados was involved in Grenada, and Haiti (1995 and 2004). CaribDigita 19:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)