This might be stupid, but it's a question I've wondered about for some time.
这可能是愚蠢的，但这是一个我一直想知道的问题。
If a country was to disband any and all of its military, and sell off its military assets, wouldn't it be an effective way to prevent an invasion? Because after this, it's clear to anyone that this country is not a threat to anyone. No military action against it can be justified. Sure, a neighboring country that still has a military could walk over and occupy it with hardly any effort - but they would have no way to justify this as a "good" or "necessary" deed, not even to their own people or soldiers.
如果一个国家解散其所有军队，并出售其军事资产，这不是防止入侵的有效方法吗？因为在此之后，任何人都清楚这个国家不会对任何人构成威胁。没有任何针对它的军事行动是合理的。当然，一个仍然拥有军队的邻国可以走过去并且几乎没有任何努力占据它 - 但是他们没有办法证明这是一种“好的”或“必要的”契约，甚至对他们自己的人民或士兵来说也是如此。
Of course this only works in a modern democratic setting. Historically, monarchs probably wouldn't worry about what the common rabble thinks of them. But today - why isn't this being done?
当然，这只适用于现代*环境。从历史上看，君主们可能不会担心普通的暴徒对他们的看法。但今天 - 为什么不这样做呢？
8 个解决方案
#1
31
Dogbert has something to say about this.
Dogbert对此有所说明。
http://www.lostrepublic.com/archives/15741
http://www.lostrepublic.com/archives/15741
Imagine a situation where a country was concerned their neighbor would invade them. The kindly watching type (KWT) country looks at their irate and quarrelesome (IRQ) neighbor and rationally evaluates the situation as having a significant potential for the IRQ to attack the KWT.
想象一下，一个国家担心他们的邻居会入侵他们。亲切观察型（KWT）国家看着他们的愤怒和quarrelesome（IRQ）邻居，并合理评估情况，因为IRQ有很大的潜力攻击KWT。
Suppose IRQ believes they have some kind of grievance that can only be answered by war. Or pretends they do.
假设IRQ认为他们有某种只能通过战争来应对的不满。或假装他们这样做。
Now imagine that KWT make the change to having zero military, and nothing else is changed. Does this change their evaluation of IRQ? Does it change the evaluation that IRQ holds of KWT?
现在想象一下，KWT改变了零军事，没有别的改变。这会改变他们对IRQ的评估吗？它是否会改变IRQ对KWT的评估？
If they anticipate that they can simply drive their jeeps over there and sit down in the president's chair, probably not killing anybody, probably not firing a single weapon, will IRQ be dissuaded or encouraged? Will the rest of the world be outraged by such a non-violent annexation?
如果他们预计他们可以简单地驾驶他们的吉普车并坐在总统的椅子上，可能不会杀死任何人，可能不会发射单一武器，IRQ会被劝阻或鼓励吗？这种非暴力吞并会让世界其他地方感到愤怒吗？
If all the KWT people can muster in response to the annexation is to put grumpy looks on their faces, does it make big media coverage in the countries that might do something about it? How does it compare to the news play if the KWT military fought fiercely but got brushed aside?
如果所有KWT人都可以回应吞并是为了让他们脸上露出脾气暴躁的样子，是否会在可能对此采取行动的国家进行大媒体报道？如果KWT军队激烈战斗但被抛到一边，它与新闻剧相比如何呢？
In other considerations, the military does lots of other things besides defending the border. They are symbolic indicators of power for the leadership. They can respond to natural disasters such as fire, flood, earthquake, with relief and crowd control and anti-looting efforts and such. They can be places to provide training to people for a wide array of useful skills. The military is a traditional place to stick unmanageable youth until they grow up a little. These are all things that governments traditionally find attractive.
在其他考虑因素中，除了保卫边界外，军方还做了很多其他事情。它们是领导力量的象征性指标。他们可以应对自然灾害，如火灾，洪水，地震，救济和人群控制以及反抢劫等。他们可以为人们提供各种有用技能的培训。军队是一个传统的地方，可以让无法管理的年轻人直到长大一点。这些都是*传统上具有吸引力的东西。
#2
12
Your basic assumption seems to be wrong, that countries are attacked because they're perceived to be threats. While this is sometimes the reason (e.g. the Iraq War was supposedly to prevent Saddam Hussein from making use of weapons of mass destruction -- although this is a gross simplification), it's not the only reason countries invade other countries.
你的基本假设似乎是错误的，国家受到攻击是因为它们被认为是威胁。虽然这有时是原因（例如伊拉克战争据说是为了阻止萨达姆·侯赛因使用大规模杀伤性武器 - 尽管这是一种严重的简化），但这并不是各国入侵其他国家的唯一原因。
Historically, the primary reason for invasions has been to acquire resources. For example, another country may have valuable oil reserves -- if you successfully attack them and take them over, now you have valuable oil reserves. Instead of having to purchase oil from them, you can sell it to others.
从历史上看，入侵的主要原因是获取资源。例如，另一个国家可能拥有宝贵的石油储备 - 如果你成功地攻击它们并将它们带走，现在你拥有宝贵的石油储备。您可以将其出售给其他人，而不必从他们那里购买石油。
To be fair, this type of warfare has declined significantly in the modern era. It's generally more cost-effective to negotiate trade treaties rather than invading, and that's what most countries do. This is one of the points that Steven Pinker makes in his book The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. However, there are some beligerant nations that are under sanctions that prevent them from trading as much as they might need; they may feel the need to acquire resources through violence since they can't do it peacefully (although the intent of the sanctions is for them to change their violent policies, then they'll be allowed to trade more freely).
公平地说，这种类型的战争在现代时代已经显着下降。谈判贸易条约而不是入侵通常更具成本效益，而这正是大多数国家所做的。这是Steven Pinker在他的书“我们的天性中更好的天使：为什么暴力已经衰退”中提出的观点之一。然而，有些一些受到制裁的国家阻止它们进行尽可能多的交易;他们可能觉得有必要通过暴力获取资源，因为他们不能和平地做到这一点（尽管制裁的目的是让他们改变他们的暴力政策，然后他们将被允许更*地进行交易）。
As long as there are nations or terrorist groups that use warfare as a means to achieve their goals, other nations will need military forces to defend against them. It's not reasonable for all peaceful countries to demilitarize -- they'll all become sitting ducks for the actors that are still willing to attack.
只要有国家或*团体将战争作为实现其目标的手段，其他国家就需要军队来抵御它们。所有和平国家都非军事化是不合理的 - 他们都会成为仍然愿意攻击的演员的避风港。
#3
9
The following countries have no military:
以下国家没有军队：
- Andorra
- 安道尔
- Dominica
- 多米尼加
- Grenada
- 格林纳达
- Kiribati
- 基里巴斯
- Liechtenstein
- 列支敦士登
- Marshall Islands
- 马绍尔群岛
- Federated States of Micronesia
- 密克罗尼西亚联邦
- Nauru
- 瑙鲁
- Palau
- 帕劳
- Saint Lucia
- 圣卢西亚
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
- 圣文森特和格林纳丁斯
- Samoa
- 萨摩亚
- Solomon Islands
- 所罗门群岛
- Tuvalu Since
- 图瓦卢自从
- Vatican City (Inclusion in this list is debatable. The Swiss Guard is under the authority of the Holy See, an entity which is much older than the Vatican City. But the Pope rules both, so they're not exactly independent.)
- 梵蒂冈城（列入这个名单是值得商榷的。瑞士卫队是罗马教廷的权威，罗马教廷是一个比梵蒂冈城更古老的实体。但教皇统治这两者，所以他们并不是完全独立的。）
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces
Note that most of them do have agreements with nearby countries for protection. So maybe the answer is, that it can be a defensive strategy in this day and age if you have a strong and friendly neighbor.
请注意，他们中的大多数确实与附近国家签订了保护协议。所以也许答案是，如果你有一个强大而友好的邻居，它可以成为当今时代的防御策略。
Historically of course, this was a terrible idea. The Moriori people practiced strict non-violence. In the 1830's, they were invaded by the Taranaki Māori who nearly wiped them out, committing some pretty terrible atrocities above and beyond simple murder on the way.
当然，从历史上看，这是一个糟糕的主意。 Moriori人实行严格的非暴力。在1830年代，他们被塔拉纳基毛利人入侵，他们几乎将他们摧毁，在途中犯下了一些非常可怕的暴行，超越了简单的谋杀。
#4
6
This is an interesting question, but I think it's constructed on a few false premises.
这是一个有趣的问题，但我认为它是在一些虚假的前提下构建的。
If a country was to disband any and all of its military, and sell off it's military assets, wouldn't it be an effective way to prevent an invasion? Because after this, it's clear to anyone that this country is not a threat to anyone.
如果一个国家解散其所有军队，并出售其军事资产，这不是防止入侵的有效方法吗？因为在此之后，任何人都清楚这个国家不会对任何人构成威胁。
In the modern world, most democratic countries are not considered a threat to any others. No one worries about the US (3rd in the world, with 1,348,400 service members) invading Iceland (with no active duty military, just a Coast Guard).
在现代世界中，大多数*国家不被视为对任何其他国家的威胁。没有人担心美国（世界第三，拥有1,348,400名服务成员）入侵冰岛（没有现役军人，只有海岸警卫队）。
No military action against it can be justified. Sure, a neighboring country that still has a military could walk over and occupy it with hardly any effort - but they would have no way to justify this as a "good" or "necessary" deed, not even to their own people or soldiers.
没有任何针对它的军事行动是合理的。当然，一个仍然拥有军队的邻国可以走过去并且几乎没有任何努力占据它 - 但是他们没有办法证明这是一种“好的”或“必要的”契约，甚至对他们自己的人民或士兵来说也是如此。
I don't see why the lack of resistance would matter at all to what Casus belli is used to justify a war or invasion. For example, if "rebels" in a country ask a neighboring country to come in and restore order, it doesn't matter whether that country has a military to protest it or not. Other countries and people will either believe the cause was justified or not, regardless of whether there was any fighting involved.
我不明白为什么缺乏抵抗对于使用Casus belli来证明战争或入侵的合理性至关重要。例如，如果一个国家的“*分子”要求邻国进入并恢复秩序，那么该国是否有军队来*它并不重要。无论是否有任何战斗，其他国家和人民都会相信原因是否合理。
#5
2
During the Cold War, some German leftists suggested that the risk of accidental war on the Iron Curtain outweighs the risk of deliberate war, and that measures should be taken to prevent accidental war even at the expense of military efficiency.
在冷战期间，一些德国左翼分子认为，铁幕发生意外战争的风险超过了蓄意战争的风险，应该采取措施防止意外战争，即使以牺牲军事效率为代价。
The idea was to deploy non-mechanized infantry with plenty of anti-tank missiles forward near the border, and tank forces way back in the own territory. As long as the Soviets did not see those tanks moving forward, they could be assured that no major attack was imminent. Of course the best defense includes active counterattacks, so the infantry forces forward would sacrifice some of their efficiency. If it had come to a war, they would have paid dearly, but the judgement of those leftists was that the reduced risk of misunderstandings was worth it.
其想法是在边境附近部署非机械化步兵，并配备大量反坦克导弹，坦克部队将返回自己的领土。只要苏联人没有看到这些坦克前进，他们就可以确信没有重大攻击迫在眉睫。当然，最好的防守包括积极的反击，所以步兵部队将牺牲一些效率。如果它发生了战争，他们本可以付出高昂的代价，但这些左派的判断是减少误解的风险是值得的。
This is comparable to agreements on demilitarized zones as part of armstices or confidence-building measures, except that it would have been an unilateral decision.
这与作为武器或建立信任措施一部分的非军事区协定相当，但它本来是一项单方面决定。
#6
2
The reason why we can't demilitarize is because you'd have to convince everyone, sovereign entities and rogue elements alike, to get rid of their weapons and other assets. Even if you could theoretically convince every country in the world to do so, you're definitely not going to convince religious zealots, drug lords, smugglers, pirates, and so on to give up their life of crime in the interest of global peace, and simple law enforcement isn't sufficient.
我们不能非军事化的原因是因为你必须说服每个人，主权实体和流氓分子，以摆脱他们的武器和其他资产。即使你理论上可以说服世界上每个国家都这样做，但你绝对不会说服宗教*者，毒枭，走私者，海盗等为了全球和平而放弃犯罪的生命，简单的执法是不够的。
Aside from that, many major advancements in science, medicine, and technology have come from military research and funding. Without a military interested in coming up with ways to make war more effective and simultaneously less deadly, we would not have a lot of the technology we have today. It would all have to be privatized, which means that people would be inventing this stuff to make money instead of protecting people. Remember, the military is, strictly speaking, not a profitable organization, but their work is important.
除此之外，科学，医学和技术方面的许多重大进步都来自军事研究和资金。如果没有军方有兴趣提出使战争更有效，同时不那么致命的方法，我们就不会拥有今天的大量技术。它们都必须私有化，这意味着人们会发明这些东西来赚钱而不是保护人。请记住，严格来说，军队不是一个有利可图的组织，但他们的工作很重要。
In order to fully demilitarize all countries, you would still need a global military force that could respond to terrorist threats, continue global research in the areas of medicine, science, and technology, and provide disaster relief all across the globe no matter where they occurred. Then, it follows, you'd have to figure out how to fairly fund this force, and yet keep it impartial to any one sovereign entity.
为了使所有国家完全非军事化，你仍然需要一支能够应对*威胁的全球军事力量，继续在医学，科学和技术领域开展全球研究，并在全球范围内提供救灾，无论它们发生在何处。然后，接下来，你必须弄清楚如何公平地为这支部队提供资金，然后让任何一个主权实体保持公正。
While such a global force might be more efficient from a global point of view, there wouldn't be many that would support it, especially if it meant supporting their perceived enemies in the process. To make matters worse, the very psychology of humanity would make such a situation impossible without somehow managing to "reeducate" the entire civilized world under a common belief system and moral code. Even if no country threatened to invade any other country ever, we would still have to have organizations that replace the other vital functions of the military.
虽然从全球的角度来看，这样一种全球力量可能会更有效率，但并不会有很多人支持它，特别是如果它意味着在这个过程中支持他们所认识的敌人。更糟糕的是，如果不以某种方式设法在共同的信仰体系和道德准则下“重新教育”整个文明世界，那么人类的心理就会使这种情况变得不可能。即使没有国家威胁要侵略任何其他国家，我们仍然必须有组织来取代军队的其他重要职能。
#7
1
Tell that to Crimea. There were solid pacts and treaties in place for its defense, but when push came to shove, no one was willing to go to war with Russia in order to comply with their agreement. So now Crimea is Russian.
告诉克里米亚。为了防御而有了坚实的协议和条约，但是当推动推进时，没有人愿意与俄罗斯开战以遵守他们的协议。所以现在克里米亚是俄罗斯人。
#8
1
My observation is that invasions happen more often in relatively defenseless countries (compared to their aggressor) than well-guarded countries. In the entire course of the cold war and beyond, the United States never invaded Russia or vice versa. Despite the United States's adversarial relationship with China in recent decades, we have been reluctant to enter into any military conflict with them. Invasion of nuclear powers is scarce. The U.S. invaded Iraq under the false pretense that they had nuclear weapons, but the U.S. government has never invaded a country that they knew had nuclear weapons. North Korea has had a nuclear weapons program since the 1980's and has been out of compliance with the UN Security Council since 1993, but we never bothered to invade and disarm them. Saudi Arabia is the most militarily strong country in the Middle East, and it is also an Arab country that the United States has shown little eagerness to invade, despite being the home country of most of the 9/11 hijackers; but we have conducted various campaigns in militarily weaker Arab countries like Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. In recent decades, Russia has invaded Ukraine, Georgia, and Chechnya; having little to do with whether they pose a military threat. Iraq invaded Kuwait despite Kuwait not being a match militarily.
我的观察是，相对无防卫的国家（与其侵略者相比）入侵的次数多于保卫良好的国家。在整个冷战期间及以后，美国从未入侵过俄罗斯，反之亦然。尽管美国近几十年来与中国建立了对抗关系，但我们一直不愿与他们发生任何军事冲突。核大国的入侵很少。美国以虚假借口入侵伊拉克，他们拥有核武器，但美国*从未入侵过他们认为拥有核武器的国家。自1980年代以来，朝鲜一直拥有核武器计划，自1993年以来一直不遵守联合国安理会，但我们从不打算入侵和解除他们的武装。沙特阿拉伯是中东地区军事实力最强的国家，尽管是大多数9/11劫机者的家乡，但它也是一个阿拉伯国家，美国几乎没有急于入侵的国家。但我们在伊拉克，叙利亚和阿富汗等军事上较弱的阿拉伯国家开展了各种活动。近几十年来，俄罗斯入侵了乌克兰，格鲁吉亚和车臣;与他们是否构成军事威胁毫无关系。尽管科威特在军事上不是一场比赛，但伊拉克入侵了科威特。
It is rather rare in recent decades that invaded countries have been militarily mighty. There have been dozens of often not-well-known invasions perpetrated against militarily weak nations. Some notable exceptions have been the various invasions of India, the conflicts involving Israel, and the invasions involving Iraq. It can be conjectured that all of these classify as too much personal grudge to care about the defending nation's strength, or overwhelming military superiority of the invading country.
近几十年来，入侵的国家在军事上一直很强大。对军事上的弱国进行了数十次通常不为人知的入侵。一些值得注意的例外是印度的各种入侵，涉及以色列的冲突以及涉及伊拉克的入侵。可以推测，所有这些都归因于过多的个人怨恨，无法关心捍卫国家的力量，或者是入侵国家的压倒性军事优势。
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
I believe a better defensive system would be to maintain a small to medium-sized military, operate a strong economy that is not weakened by excessive military spending, and maintain good diplomatic and military alliances. Switzerland's model of military neutrality and good diplomatic relations has helped it become the most economically and socially well-off country in the world (note: Switzerland DOES have a small military with a budget of about $4.8 billion). But the virtue in maintaining a small military, rather than no military, is it gives you more military capital with which to trade military alliances with other countries.
我认为，一个更好的防御体系将是维持一个中小型军队，经营一个没有因过度军事开支而削弱的强大经济，并保持良好的外交和军事联盟。瑞士的军事中立模式和良好的外交关系使其成为世界上经济和社会最富裕的国家（注：瑞士的军队规模小，预算约为48亿美元）。但是，维持小军队而不是军队的优点在于它为你提供了更多的军事资本来与其他国家进行军事联盟。
It can also be observed that in recent decades, there have rarely been invasions perpetrated against wealthy, industrialized, liberal democracies in the West. Specifically, in the 84 most recent invasions, the only a few have been directed against western democracies, only their distantly-held territories, not mainland invasions (Spanish and French territories in Morocco, British-controlled Falkland Islands, Dutch-controlled Papau New Guinea, Portuguese territories in India). This likely has to do with having neighbors who are also modernized liberal democracies. It can be reasoned that if a country provides humanitarian aid to help its neighbors to stabilize, establish a constitutional democracy, improve their education, and improve their economic health; then they can help stabilize their local geopolitical situation. Stable neighbors create an ally and eliminate a potential enemy at the same time.
还可以看出，近几十年来，很少有人对西方富裕的，工业化的，**国家进行入侵。具体而言，在84次最近的入侵中，只有少数人针对的是西方*国家，只有他们远程控制的领土，而不是大陆入侵（摩洛哥的西班牙和法国领土，英国控制的福克兰群岛，荷兰控制的巴布亚新几内亚） ，印度的葡萄牙领土）。这可能与拥有现代化**国家的邻居有关。可以理解，如果一个国家提供人道主义援助，帮助其邻国稳定，建立宪政*，改善教育，改善经济健康;然后他们可以帮助稳定当地的地缘政治局势。稳定的邻居创造了一个盟友，同时消灭了潜在的敌人。
#1
31
Dogbert has something to say about this.
Dogbert对此有所说明。
http://www.lostrepublic.com/archives/15741
http://www.lostrepublic.com/archives/15741
Imagine a situation where a country was concerned their neighbor would invade them. The kindly watching type (KWT) country looks at their irate and quarrelesome (IRQ) neighbor and rationally evaluates the situation as having a significant potential for the IRQ to attack the KWT.
想象一下，一个国家担心他们的邻居会入侵他们。亲切观察型（KWT）国家看着他们的愤怒和quarrelesome（IRQ）邻居，并合理评估情况，因为IRQ有很大的潜力攻击KWT。
Suppose IRQ believes they have some kind of grievance that can only be answered by war. Or pretends they do.
假设IRQ认为他们有某种只能通过战争来应对的不满。或假装他们这样做。
Now imagine that KWT make the change to having zero military, and nothing else is changed. Does this change their evaluation of IRQ? Does it change the evaluation that IRQ holds of KWT?
现在想象一下，KWT改变了零军事，没有别的改变。这会改变他们对IRQ的评估吗？它是否会改变IRQ对KWT的评估？
If they anticipate that they can simply drive their jeeps over there and sit down in the president's chair, probably not killing anybody, probably not firing a single weapon, will IRQ be dissuaded or encouraged? Will the rest of the world be outraged by such a non-violent annexation?
如果他们预计他们可以简单地驾驶他们的吉普车并坐在总统的椅子上，可能不会杀死任何人，可能不会发射单一武器，IRQ会被劝阻或鼓励吗？这种非暴力吞并会让世界其他地方感到愤怒吗？
If all the KWT people can muster in response to the annexation is to put grumpy looks on their faces, does it make big media coverage in the countries that might do something about it? How does it compare to the news play if the KWT military fought fiercely but got brushed aside?
如果所有KWT人都可以回应吞并是为了让他们脸上露出脾气暴躁的样子，是否会在可能对此采取行动的国家进行大媒体报道？如果KWT军队激烈战斗但被抛到一边，它与新闻剧相比如何呢？
In other considerations, the military does lots of other things besides defending the border. They are symbolic indicators of power for the leadership. They can respond to natural disasters such as fire, flood, earthquake, with relief and crowd control and anti-looting efforts and such. They can be places to provide training to people for a wide array of useful skills. The military is a traditional place to stick unmanageable youth until they grow up a little. These are all things that governments traditionally find attractive.
在其他考虑因素中，除了保卫边界外，军方还做了很多其他事情。它们是领导力量的象征性指标。他们可以应对自然灾害，如火灾，洪水，地震，救济和人群控制以及反抢劫等。他们可以为人们提供各种有用技能的培训。军队是一个传统的地方，可以让无法管理的年轻人直到长大一点。这些都是*传统上具有吸引力的东西。
#2
12
Your basic assumption seems to be wrong, that countries are attacked because they're perceived to be threats. While this is sometimes the reason (e.g. the Iraq War was supposedly to prevent Saddam Hussein from making use of weapons of mass destruction -- although this is a gross simplification), it's not the only reason countries invade other countries.
你的基本假设似乎是错误的，国家受到攻击是因为它们被认为是威胁。虽然这有时是原因（例如伊拉克战争据说是为了阻止萨达姆·侯赛因使用大规模杀伤性武器 - 尽管这是一种严重的简化），但这并不是各国入侵其他国家的唯一原因。
Historically, the primary reason for invasions has been to acquire resources. For example, another country may have valuable oil reserves -- if you successfully attack them and take them over, now you have valuable oil reserves. Instead of having to purchase oil from them, you can sell it to others.
从历史上看，入侵的主要原因是获取资源。例如，另一个国家可能拥有宝贵的石油储备 - 如果你成功地攻击它们并将它们带走，现在你拥有宝贵的石油储备。您可以将其出售给其他人，而不必从他们那里购买石油。
To be fair, this type of warfare has declined significantly in the modern era. It's generally more cost-effective to negotiate trade treaties rather than invading, and that's what most countries do. This is one of the points that Steven Pinker makes in his book The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. However, there are some beligerant nations that are under sanctions that prevent them from trading as much as they might need; they may feel the need to acquire resources through violence since they can't do it peacefully (although the intent of the sanctions is for them to change their violent policies, then they'll be allowed to trade more freely).
公平地说，这种类型的战争在现代时代已经显着下降。谈判贸易条约而不是入侵通常更具成本效益，而这正是大多数国家所做的。这是Steven Pinker在他的书“我们的天性中更好的天使：为什么暴力已经衰退”中提出的观点之一。然而，有些一些受到制裁的国家阻止它们进行尽可能多的交易;他们可能觉得有必要通过暴力获取资源，因为他们不能和平地做到这一点（尽管制裁的目的是让他们改变他们的暴力政策，然后他们将被允许更*地进行交易）。
As long as there are nations or terrorist groups that use warfare as a means to achieve their goals, other nations will need military forces to defend against them. It's not reasonable for all peaceful countries to demilitarize -- they'll all become sitting ducks for the actors that are still willing to attack.
只要有国家或*团体将战争作为实现其目标的手段，其他国家就需要军队来抵御它们。所有和平国家都非军事化是不合理的 - 他们都会成为仍然愿意攻击的演员的避风港。
#3
9
The following countries have no military:
以下国家没有军队：
- Andorra
- 安道尔
- Dominica
- 多米尼加
- Grenada
- 格林纳达
- Kiribati
- 基里巴斯
- Liechtenstein
- 列支敦士登
- Marshall Islands
- 马绍尔群岛
- Federated States of Micronesia
- 密克罗尼西亚联邦
- Nauru
- 瑙鲁
- Palau
- 帕劳
- Saint Lucia
- 圣卢西亚
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
- 圣文森特和格林纳丁斯
- Samoa
- 萨摩亚
- Solomon Islands
- 所罗门群岛
- Tuvalu Since
- 图瓦卢自从
- Vatican City (Inclusion in this list is debatable. The Swiss Guard is under the authority of the Holy See, an entity which is much older than the Vatican City. But the Pope rules both, so they're not exactly independent.)
- 梵蒂冈城（列入这个名单是值得商榷的。瑞士卫队是罗马教廷的权威，罗马教廷是一个比梵蒂冈城更古老的实体。但教皇统治这两者，所以他们并不是完全独立的。）
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces
Note that most of them do have agreements with nearby countries for protection. So maybe the answer is, that it can be a defensive strategy in this day and age if you have a strong and friendly neighbor.
请注意，他们中的大多数确实与附近国家签订了保护协议。所以也许答案是，如果你有一个强大而友好的邻居，它可以成为当今时代的防御策略。
Historically of course, this was a terrible idea. The Moriori people practiced strict non-violence. In the 1830's, they were invaded by the Taranaki Māori who nearly wiped them out, committing some pretty terrible atrocities above and beyond simple murder on the way.
当然，从历史上看，这是一个糟糕的主意。 Moriori人实行严格的非暴力。在1830年代，他们被塔拉纳基毛利人入侵，他们几乎将他们摧毁，在途中犯下了一些非常可怕的暴行，超越了简单的谋杀。
#4
6
This is an interesting question, but I think it's constructed on a few false premises.
这是一个有趣的问题，但我认为它是在一些虚假的前提下构建的。
If a country was to disband any and all of its military, and sell off it's military assets, wouldn't it be an effective way to prevent an invasion? Because after this, it's clear to anyone that this country is not a threat to anyone.
如果一个国家解散其所有军队，并出售其军事资产，这不是防止入侵的有效方法吗？因为在此之后，任何人都清楚这个国家不会对任何人构成威胁。
In the modern world, most democratic countries are not considered a threat to any others. No one worries about the US (3rd in the world, with 1,348,400 service members) invading Iceland (with no active duty military, just a Coast Guard).
在现代世界中，大多数*国家不被视为对任何其他国家的威胁。没有人担心美国（世界第三，拥有1,348,400名服务成员）入侵冰岛（没有现役军人，只有海岸警卫队）。
No military action against it can be justified. Sure, a neighboring country that still has a military could walk over and occupy it with hardly any effort - but they would have no way to justify this as a "good" or "necessary" deed, not even to their own people or soldiers.
没有任何针对它的军事行动是合理的。当然，一个仍然拥有军队的邻国可以走过去并且几乎没有任何努力占据它 - 但是他们没有办法证明这是一种“好的”或“必要的”契约，甚至对他们自己的人民或士兵来说也是如此。
I don't see why the lack of resistance would matter at all to what Casus belli is used to justify a war or invasion. For example, if "rebels" in a country ask a neighboring country to come in and restore order, it doesn't matter whether that country has a military to protest it or not. Other countries and people will either believe the cause was justified or not, regardless of whether there was any fighting involved.
我不明白为什么缺乏抵抗对于使用Casus belli来证明战争或入侵的合理性至关重要。例如，如果一个国家的“*分子”要求邻国进入并恢复秩序，那么该国是否有军队来*它并不重要。无论是否有任何战斗，其他国家和人民都会相信原因是否合理。
#5
2
During the Cold War, some German leftists suggested that the risk of accidental war on the Iron Curtain outweighs the risk of deliberate war, and that measures should be taken to prevent accidental war even at the expense of military efficiency.
在冷战期间，一些德国左翼分子认为，铁幕发生意外战争的风险超过了蓄意战争的风险，应该采取措施防止意外战争，即使以牺牲军事效率为代价。
The idea was to deploy non-mechanized infantry with plenty of anti-tank missiles forward near the border, and tank forces way back in the own territory. As long as the Soviets did not see those tanks moving forward, they could be assured that no major attack was imminent. Of course the best defense includes active counterattacks, so the infantry forces forward would sacrifice some of their efficiency. If it had come to a war, they would have paid dearly, but the judgement of those leftists was that the reduced risk of misunderstandings was worth it.
其想法是在边境附近部署非机械化步兵，并配备大量反坦克导弹，坦克部队将返回自己的领土。只要苏联人没有看到这些坦克前进，他们就可以确信没有重大攻击迫在眉睫。当然，最好的防守包括积极的反击，所以步兵部队将牺牲一些效率。如果它发生了战争，他们本可以付出高昂的代价，但这些左派的判断是减少误解的风险是值得的。
This is comparable to agreements on demilitarized zones as part of armstices or confidence-building measures, except that it would have been an unilateral decision.
这与作为武器或建立信任措施一部分的非军事区协定相当，但它本来是一项单方面决定。
#6
2
The reason why we can't demilitarize is because you'd have to convince everyone, sovereign entities and rogue elements alike, to get rid of their weapons and other assets. Even if you could theoretically convince every country in the world to do so, you're definitely not going to convince religious zealots, drug lords, smugglers, pirates, and so on to give up their life of crime in the interest of global peace, and simple law enforcement isn't sufficient.
我们不能非军事化的原因是因为你必须说服每个人，主权实体和流氓分子，以摆脱他们的武器和其他资产。即使你理论上可以说服世界上每个国家都这样做，但你绝对不会说服宗教*者，毒枭，走私者，海盗等为了全球和平而放弃犯罪的生命，简单的执法是不够的。
Aside from that, many major advancements in science, medicine, and technology have come from military research and funding. Without a military interested in coming up with ways to make war more effective and simultaneously less deadly, we would not have a lot of the technology we have today. It would all have to be privatized, which means that people would be inventing this stuff to make money instead of protecting people. Remember, the military is, strictly speaking, not a profitable organization, but their work is important.
除此之外，科学，医学和技术方面的许多重大进步都来自军事研究和资金。如果没有军方有兴趣提出使战争更有效，同时不那么致命的方法，我们就不会拥有今天的大量技术。它们都必须私有化，这意味着人们会发明这些东西来赚钱而不是保护人。请记住，严格来说，军队不是一个有利可图的组织，但他们的工作很重要。
In order to fully demilitarize all countries, you would still need a global military force that could respond to terrorist threats, continue global research in the areas of medicine, science, and technology, and provide disaster relief all across the globe no matter where they occurred. Then, it follows, you'd have to figure out how to fairly fund this force, and yet keep it impartial to any one sovereign entity.
为了使所有国家完全非军事化，你仍然需要一支能够应对*威胁的全球军事力量，继续在医学，科学和技术领域开展全球研究，并在全球范围内提供救灾，无论它们发生在何处。然后，接下来，你必须弄清楚如何公平地为这支部队提供资金，然后让任何一个主权实体保持公正。
While such a global force might be more efficient from a global point of view, there wouldn't be many that would support it, especially if it meant supporting their perceived enemies in the process. To make matters worse, the very psychology of humanity would make such a situation impossible without somehow managing to "reeducate" the entire civilized world under a common belief system and moral code. Even if no country threatened to invade any other country ever, we would still have to have organizations that replace the other vital functions of the military.
虽然从全球的角度来看，这样一种全球力量可能会更有效率，但并不会有很多人支持它，特别是如果它意味着在这个过程中支持他们所认识的敌人。更糟糕的是，如果不以某种方式设法在共同的信仰体系和道德准则下“重新教育”整个文明世界，那么人类的心理就会使这种情况变得不可能。即使没有国家威胁要侵略任何其他国家，我们仍然必须有组织来取代军队的其他重要职能。
#7
1
Tell that to Crimea. There were solid pacts and treaties in place for its defense, but when push came to shove, no one was willing to go to war with Russia in order to comply with their agreement. So now Crimea is Russian.
告诉克里米亚。为了防御而有了坚实的协议和条约，但是当推动推进时，没有人愿意与俄罗斯开战以遵守他们的协议。所以现在克里米亚是俄罗斯人。
#8
1
My observation is that invasions happen more often in relatively defenseless countries (compared to their aggressor) than well-guarded countries. In the entire course of the cold war and beyond, the United States never invaded Russia or vice versa. Despite the United States's adversarial relationship with China in recent decades, we have been reluctant to enter into any military conflict with them. Invasion of nuclear powers is scarce. The U.S. invaded Iraq under the false pretense that they had nuclear weapons, but the U.S. government has never invaded a country that they knew had nuclear weapons. North Korea has had a nuclear weapons program since the 1980's and has been out of compliance with the UN Security Council since 1993, but we never bothered to invade and disarm them. Saudi Arabia is the most militarily strong country in the Middle East, and it is also an Arab country that the United States has shown little eagerness to invade, despite being the home country of most of the 9/11 hijackers; but we have conducted various campaigns in militarily weaker Arab countries like Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. In recent decades, Russia has invaded Ukraine, Georgia, and Chechnya; having little to do with whether they pose a military threat. Iraq invaded Kuwait despite Kuwait not being a match militarily.
我的观察是，相对无防卫的国家（与其侵略者相比）入侵的次数多于保卫良好的国家。在整个冷战期间及以后，美国从未入侵过俄罗斯，反之亦然。尽管美国近几十年来与中国建立了对抗关系，但我们一直不愿与他们发生任何军事冲突。核大国的入侵很少。美国以虚假借口入侵伊拉克，他们拥有核武器，但美国*从未入侵过他们认为拥有核武器的国家。自1980年代以来，朝鲜一直拥有核武器计划，自1993年以来一直不遵守联合国安理会，但我们从不打算入侵和解除他们的武装。沙特阿拉伯是中东地区军事实力最强的国家，尽管是大多数9/11劫机者的家乡，但它也是一个阿拉伯国家，美国几乎没有急于入侵的国家。但我们在伊拉克，叙利亚和阿富汗等军事上较弱的阿拉伯国家开展了各种活动。近几十年来，俄罗斯入侵了乌克兰，格鲁吉亚和车臣;与他们是否构成军事威胁毫无关系。尽管科威特在军事上不是一场比赛，但伊拉克入侵了科威特。
It is rather rare in recent decades that invaded countries have been militarily mighty. There have been dozens of often not-well-known invasions perpetrated against militarily weak nations. Some notable exceptions have been the various invasions of India, the conflicts involving Israel, and the invasions involving Iraq. It can be conjectured that all of these classify as too much personal grudge to care about the defending nation's strength, or overwhelming military superiority of the invading country.
近几十年来，入侵的国家在军事上一直很强大。对军事上的弱国进行了数十次通常不为人知的入侵。一些值得注意的例外是印度的各种入侵，涉及以色列的冲突以及涉及伊拉克的入侵。可以推测，所有这些都归因于过多的个人怨恨，无法关心捍卫国家的力量，或者是入侵国家的压倒性军事优势。
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
I believe a better defensive system would be to maintain a small to medium-sized military, operate a strong economy that is not weakened by excessive military spending, and maintain good diplomatic and military alliances. Switzerland's model of military neutrality and good diplomatic relations has helped it become the most economically and socially well-off country in the world (note: Switzerland DOES have a small military with a budget of about $4.8 billion). But the virtue in maintaining a small military, rather than no military, is it gives you more military capital with which to trade military alliances with other countries.
我认为，一个更好的防御体系将是维持一个中小型军队，经营一个没有因过度军事开支而削弱的强大经济，并保持良好的外交和军事联盟。瑞士的军事中立模式和良好的外交关系使其成为世界上经济和社会最富裕的国家（注：瑞士的军队规模小，预算约为48亿美元）。但是，维持小军队而不是军队的优点在于它为你提供了更多的军事资本来与其他国家进行军事联盟。
It can also be observed that in recent decades, there have rarely been invasions perpetrated against wealthy, industrialized, liberal democracies in the West. Specifically, in the 84 most recent invasions, the only a few have been directed against western democracies, only their distantly-held territories, not mainland invasions (Spanish and French territories in Morocco, British-controlled Falkland Islands, Dutch-controlled Papau New Guinea, Portuguese territories in India). This likely has to do with having neighbors who are also modernized liberal democracies. It can be reasoned that if a country provides humanitarian aid to help its neighbors to stabilize, establish a constitutional democracy, improve their education, and improve their economic health; then they can help stabilize their local geopolitical situation. Stable neighbors create an ally and eliminate a potential enemy at the same time.
还可以看出，近几十年来，很少有人对西方富裕的，工业化的，**国家进行入侵。具体而言，在84次最近的入侵中，只有少数人针对的是西方*国家，只有他们远程控制的领土，而不是大陆入侵（摩洛哥的西班牙和法国领土，英国控制的福克兰群岛，荷兰控制的巴布亚新几内亚） ，印度的葡萄牙领土）。这可能与拥有现代化**国家的邻居有关。可以理解，如果一个国家提供人道主义援助，帮助其邻国稳定，建立宪政*，改善教育，改善经济健康;然后他们可以帮助稳定当地的地缘政治局势。稳定的邻居创造了一个盟友，同时消灭了潜在的敌人。