Botswana had no armed forces for ten years, and realized that was a bad idea when Rhodesians & South Africans began doing raids in their territory. Botswana has been involved in 14 militarized disputes, two of which involved fatalities, since 1969. In the year 2000, Botswana had the 14th highest defense spending in sub-Saharan Africa.

Botswana is rich in diamonds.

Hey what do you think of Costa Rica which has no military btw?

It was Costa Rica right?

Ah here we are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces

"This lot remained independent under a specific system of law known as the Commonwealth in English until 1262 when a civil war forced us to swear allegiance to the king of Norway. When Norway in turn became the property of Denmark, Iceland sort of followed in the bargain."

Ok, so the period of Danish rule over Iceland (1380-1944), was more than 550 years. Prior to that it was Norwegian ruled for 100+ years. Norway itself was ruled by Denmark since the time of the Kalmar Union until the 20th century.

Not time immemorial, but for a good majority of time there has been settlement in Iceland it has been ruled by Denmark.

""So why indeed should an indigenous population which shares a common language, history and values not be ruled by some bureaucrats in a country on the other side of an ocean which share none of the above?""

I already addressed the history point. But as to language, was it not a fact that Danish was the official language of Iceland for the duration of its rule? Is it not also true the first modern Icelandic grammar was constructed by a Dane?

"By that standard you could say that most of Western Europe hardly qualifies as independent seeing their dependence on the United States for most of the past sixty years for their defence."

Most of western Europe have substantial militaries and they contribute actively to the common defense of Europe. The point isn't that Iceland is expected to be able to defend itself against a world superpower - few countries could -, but that it could put up some kind of fight against most threats and didn't have to outsource its defense to somebody else anytime it got difficult. The opening line of the US-Iceland agreement says the following: "aving regard to the fact that the people of Iceland cannot themselves adequately secure their own defenses, and whereas experience has shown that a country's lack of defenses greatly endangers its security and that of its peaceful neighbors, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has requested, because of the unsettled state of world affairs, that the United States and Iceland in view of the collective efforts of the parties to the North Atlantic Treaty to preserve peace and security in the North Atlantic Treaty area, make arrangements for the use of facilities in Iceland in defense of Iceland and thus also the North Atlantic Treaty area."

Iceland signed a defense agreement in which they admit they cannot defend themselves and that this is a problem.

"Because unlike Scotland and Wales the final say in our foreign and domestic policies is not decided in Washington or London."

"(seeing as it completely ignores the right to self-determination of domestic affairs, a lynchpin of Westphalian sovereignty)"

Scotland has plenty of autonomy over its own domestic affairs. So does Gaza. So does Catalonia. Plenty of non-independent entities throughout history have run their own affairs. As for Iceland having final say over foreign affairs, that's based on the goodwill of its allies. They can have say over all things that don't require having capabilities.

Costa Rica's "non-military" is bigger than Haiti's and its spending is on par with the Dominican Republic.

I don't actually have anything to prove here, to be honest I don't know why the hell everyone is talking about militaries and Iceland and defense pacts and such. Lol.

"The point is history has shown that the phrase Si vis pacem, para bellum is false, and that countries with small armies are less likely to go to war, not more likely to be annexed despite popular belief."

Really, what happened to the lion's share of 'small countries' in Europe and the South Pacific during WWII, even ones that tried to maintain neutrality?

Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, San Marino, Monaco - all occupied, despite many of their attempts to maintain neutrality. The UK was considering invading Ireland.

As for Liechtenstein, they had a substantial amount of land seized from them by Poland & Czech.

And you know you suck at independence when even the Czechs can unilaterally nationalise your estates.

So you're basically espousing Realist doctrine. Not saying that's good or bad, just clarifying?

Sorry should say Norway was Danish until the 19th cen. Thanks Napoleon.

Realist? Yes. Selfhelp is essential for statehood in an anarchic world order.

But is it really anarchic though? It is anarchy in the sense that there is an absence of government, but it isn't anarchic in the sense that it is not chaotic and disordered.

This is good let's keep doing this I have a test on IR theory in 30 minutes. lol

Are you a structural Realist or a neoclassical?

It is increasing chaotic and disordered. Because unilpolarity doesn't allow for predictability like bipolarity or even multipolarity does. Capabilities no longer have as much of an effect since security competition has given way to consumption maximization.

Neoclassical.

How would you explain the fact that the countries of the world are not teaming up to balance against the overwhelming power of the United States? Would that not have logically followed the fall of the USSR? Why didn't it?

Also what would you say is the major difference between neoclassical and structural, to be honest I'm not quite sure myself.

Countries are more focused on balancing regional powers than the global hegmon. Many countries look to the US to balance against more immediate regional foes. For example, China's neighbors, even Vietnam, look to the US for help against China. To them China is a more immediate threat than the distant United States. Ditto Russia's immediate neighbors. Many of India's neighbors look to China to balance against India (Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, and of course Pakistan all are friendly with China).

A region where there does seem to be some balancing vs the US is Latin America, at least in some cases like Venezuela. But the problem for Latin America is there is not really a power with global reach who they can reach out to for support. Venezuela tries to reach out to Russia, but relations are still limited.

Also, a key difference between neoclassical & structural realism that in the former - intentions matter. Countries will only balance if they perceive a power as having hostile/revisionist intentions. So neoclassical realism focuses more on the unit level of analysis - the state. Structural realism, like its name implies, looks at the overall distribution of power and the systemic level.

Structural realists essentially argue that all states will behave similarly given certain structural parameters. Power seeking & balancing is a reflection of the system - namely anarchy. Neoclassicals, again, point to the differences between status quo & revisionist states. They point to the fact that in some cases where the structure would seem to suggest balancing against a hegemon is in order, bandwagoning happens instead.
For example, Italy largely bandwagoned off of Germany's power, once it saw Germany's quick victories in 1940. Other small countries around Germany did similar things.

"Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, San Marino, Monaco - all occupied, despite many of their attempts to maintain neutrality. The UK was considering invading Ireland. "
Re Denmark and Norway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_R_4
This is a rather extraordinary example where the British tried to stage an invasion of Norway because Norway was a trading partner with Nazi Germany. The German reaction and invasion was quicker then expected, aided by Denmarks rather quick surrender.

I don't recall Iceland ever being invaded.

"Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg"
This was just as in world war 1. Germany invaded France through the lowlands to get past the maginot line

San Marino: The state was successfully neutral until both the axis and allies went through their lands. This was done first by the allies who thought San Marino had already been annexed by the Nazi forces. This is more of an example of military fuck ups then actually imperialist invasions of city-states.

I will yield you Monaco.

As for the pacific theatre, my knowledge of it is less extensive then Europe, but too many knowledge the Japanese invasion was entirely against China, European colonies and America. I can't think of any minor independent countries in the region that were invaded by Japan.

"As for Liechtenstein, they had a substantial amount of land seized from them by Poland & Czech. "
That is different, Poland and the Czech Republic took land away from Germany after world war 2, most of it being private land owned by Germans, some of that land included land that was inherited to House of Liechtenstein prior to world war 2 begining. It wasn't land owned by Liechtenstein's government, but private land owned by Liechtenstein's head of state.

Stalin and Truman when they redrew the map of Europe following world war 2 recognized the Czech and Polish rights to the land. This was one of the many cases where they botched up the new map of Europe.

Besides World War 2 is an unusual case since I am willing to bet more neutrality was violated in world war 2 then every other war in history combined.

"For example, China's neighbors, even Vietnam, look to the US for help against China. To them China is a more immediate threat than the distant United States. Ditto Russia's immediate neighbors. Many of India's neighbors look to China to balance against India (Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, and of course Pakistan all are friendly with China). "
This is a very flawed argument. India has had a massive number of border dispute with its neighbours, including China since its independence. China and Pakistan are natural allies due to border disagreements.

South East Asia doesn't have negative relations with China, and neither does North Korea (due to again them being natural allies based on previous wars and communist cultures)

There is nothing natural about the SinoPak alliance. Pakistan has been a stalwart US Cold war ally and also had a border dispute with China.
If your theory about small defenseless states cant hold up in WWii then itcant hold up at all. States arent going to be annexed in times of peace.

NK is a US target, so it balances against SK and US. States balance vs their most immediate enemy.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/05/indian_pakistani_and_chinese_border_disputes

Pakistan and China don't have a border dispute, they both have a border dispute with India.

World War 2 is largely the exception not the rule. Its the only way that has even been conducted on such a large scale.

Iceland was definitely invaded dude

Do you have wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Iceland

Do you have google

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=invasion+of+iceland

Oh wait I forgot you force everyone to do your googling for you.

No wonder you have some of the views you do

never by the Germans though, but I didn't know the British invaded

I have 2 exams tomorrow, one of which in a subject that I am presently failing (fucking polisci) I don't have time to google my arguments.

For an economics debate when I have the official government budget taken off the governments website in an excel spreadsheet, a quick look at the numbers is easy, but I am not going to go actively look.

I just googled it dude. Come on. Here's a pdf

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&ved=0CGYQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aau.edu%2FWorkArea%2Fshowcontent.aspx%3Fid%3 10828&ei=QlrJUOHVIYLkqQGS6oGIAQ&usg=AFQjCNGap5BP2ohZYOOlciEbzO5NSWBCmQ&sig2=PpfhWNFbJUZjl5V4XBnKWg

that one actually has better data then mine in terms of R&D (the one I have excluded Busienss):

Sources of funding for R$D:
Government: 26%
Nonprofit: 3%
universities: 4%
business: 67%
PWNED!

but thats not what I am talking about, I have the complete income statement for the 2011 budget in a spreadsheet and that is what I have been using.

China & Pakistan resolved their border dispute in the early 1960s, hence why I said they "had" one. Furthermore India was responsible for liberating Bangladesh from Pakistan, so you'd think they'd be on friendlier terms. Sri Lanka is an island, there is no border dispute there. Nor is there one between India & Nepal to my knowledge. Nepal became friendly with China despite the fact that India had a treaty controlling its foreign policy, which was why India implemented a blockade against Nepal in 1990.

Pakistan and China were so closely allied that Pakistan was one of the two countries the Red Guard did not denounce during the Cultural Revolution (the other being Albania, I believe). The difference though is Pakistan was already a US ally and an Islamic republic of sorts.

The Sino-Indian rivalry goes well behind border disagreements. China is responsible for the Pakistani nuclear program and has even built a strategic port for Pakistan - Gwadar, which significantly relieves the pressure on Karachi.

yo..... go down to figure 2 dumbass.

@Gunfighter

"I don't expect any nationalistic sentiment out of someone who wants to leave their country but is unable to.

However, someone who has no desire to leave their country and has the resources to do so should consider their country the best in the world, or else why would they stay?"

Well, in my case, two reasons. First is the same reason I'm an American. My family is here. I don't think poorly enough of America to leave my family behind. Second, because countries evolve. By moving to, say Canada, I'd be abandoning America to the people who make it worse, not better. This is my home as much as it is the home of the misguided dipshits who are trying to turn this country into a third world kleptocracy by, for example, destroying union rights. Screw that. The fight is here, and if I run, I'm surrendering.