Small state problem

>your

The same reason you dont walk through the woods and try to strangle snakes. They might bite and it might hurt. Once you hit that level, you make alliances based on long term geo-political goals.

Imagine strolling through the lower Appalachians and you stumble across a timber rattler. You know that if you get a stick behind his head that you can safely grab and strangle that bastard. He'll die and you'll have a new belt.

Now imagine knowing that if you step on that snake a fucking grizzly bear goes to your house, rapes your wife and children and waits for you to come home.

Is it?

Attached: Ilhan_Omar[1].jpg (2000x1331, 1.75M)

By being part of an alliance.

Same way Poland won WW2. Have friends.

Alliances + ramifications such as embargoes for trying to take over the country.

We live in the age where we heavily rely on our neighbors(some more than others) for survival.

Say France invades Belgium, The next day the entire western world would condemn Frances aggression by stopping all trade goods from food, entertainment, metals, personal and electronics. Massive companies who need electronics, foreign workers and other trade goods start to decline. Frances Economy then takes a shit, France can't supply gibs or pay their government workers and/or army so they quit/defect. Civilians riot to stop the war and burn their own country to the ground until France apologizes and takes it in the asshole for the next 100 years trying to make up.

Think Israel

It mostly comes down to alliances as other anons put it. But in response, you’ll always be a proxy/vassal state. But you could either be a push over, or seriously shock damaging speed bump. I lament when the U.S Balkanizes.

>West coast and portions of the south west will be backed by the Chinese and Mexico with California emerging a powerful country

>Northern states backed by Canadians and independent movements but pleagued by insurgents and a Wild West tribal like atmosphere with Canadians struggling to control it

>South most likely to be backed by Russia and Texas emerging as a powerful country with Putin giving Texans a lot of AK47s

>East coast with the exception of the Afghanistan Appalachia mountains will be backed by Markel and her EU filth along with UK and Canadians

Christ, America as a proxy Balkan battlefield will be a true carnage battle ground. Either Texas or California will emerge victorious. And maybe Texas will revive the old U.S. but given that Texas will go blue in this life time. The U.S. will probably fall to leftists by the end of the 2020s.

EU army.

Small EU states that would have to spend ridiculous amounts to keep up with R&D merge their defense industries to standardize their equipment. Higher sales figures means reduced cost per unit and thus more can be spent on better R&D.

Attached: 2000px-Flag_of_Europe.svg.png (2000x1333, 51K)

At least in terms of nations like Estonia, they utilise the principles of defence but on a national scale. The population is either located around major urban areas or spread out rurally.

Urban areas and large towns act as natural defensive positions; the outskirts are your forward defensive positions for attriting the enemy and shocking their momentum; and the further in you get the more positions youll come across that mutually support one another, with further fallback positions, choke points etc. Deeper into the country theyll have mobile reserve elements for localised counterattacks to further attrit and delay larger enemy forces.

The rural population acts as either delaying forward depth positions, i.e harassing convoys and patrols, thus taking more resources to deal with, or laying dormant to strike at the rear echelons of the enemy force once theyve moved through. This is why they have decentralised stores of ammunition and heavy weapons amongst the population, so even if their military bases are taken out there still large reserves of weapons and munitions hidden amongst the population to maintain the fight. The idea isnt to form a line of steel and hold the Russians back; its in line with British DAMROD principles, effectively delay, attrit and shock the enemy to the point of failure or confusion, whereby you can defeat their weakened forces in decisive battle, counterattack or, in Estonias case, hold until NATO reinforcements come.

fuck off Juncker

nice counterargument

>merge their defense industries to standardize their equipment.
>Totally not a pretext for G*rmany/Fr*nce to steal the last independent defense companies in Europe

Do what the Croatian army did in the 90's, invest in tactics.

>don't merge
>go bankrupt

Here's a good read about Taiwan's defense strategy, if you're interested.

archive.is/RDGw5

Attached: 3_taiwan-china_forces_0925181.jpg (1667x7875, 2.04M)

They can't. They depend on trading with larger countries for resources. If a country like Belgium had to be self-sufficient, they would go back to living like they did in Medieval times.

>EU army.
Kill yourself. Best thing that could happen to small European nations would be EU reverting back to being just a free trade area.
>Small EU states that would have to spend ridiculous amounts to keep up with R&D merge their defense industries to standardize their equipment.
That is EU speak for buy French. For sake of clarity, license production deals involving French are always disasters for the other participant where they are being subjected to fraud. Americans and Bongoloids offer better deals and they usually don't lie about readiness of the product.

Attached: Finnish_Army_NH-90.jpg (3872x2592, 2.85M)

small state needs to play between major powers.

>The answer
WITH THIS ONE WEIRD TRICK

Nukes or alliance with the US paired with throwing some money for a ground force. Spend money on anti air and missile and for fucks sake don't waste resources on fighter jets.

California alone will be a dozen fronts and full of warlords fighting over everything, not counting the gangs and millitias.

this, NorCal will split off, SoCal will split two or three ways, the Mexicans will fuck shit up all over the place, and every liberal white left in Cali will realize they can't pay for their wonderful social programs that are over loaded by the illegals and the transplants from other states. I can also see water wars becoming a thing as the water they get from neighboring states will be cut off.

>be neutral Switzerland
>trade with other countries for mutual benefit
>arm all the citizens
Real defense is via economic cooperation. Blowing money on fancy equipment is the realm of banana republics and armchair militarist dilettantes.

Germany and France will now start on further joint projects. A fighter which will be primarily French developed, and a tank which will be primarily German developed. Spain will join too. All participants will be involved in development, naturally those with a larger and more advanced industry will take a leading role. If Finland joined such a project they could contribute, but obviously they don't have the know how and resources to take a leading role in, say, a modern jet fighter.
So the two options are:
1) contribute to joint EU arms projects and accept the reality that you won't be the leading developer if you're a tiny nation
2) be dependent on the weapons designs of other nations

Compare the number of muslims to crypto-kikes in the house, and senate.

You can do all that... without a federal army.

Our military put a good focus on guerilla tactics during training in between all the more conventional shit, because nobody but retards and cod kids, who desperately want to think were American, believe that we could take any major power in a head on fight. Its probably the most interesting part of training.

Attached: !army no.jpg (660x687, 61K)

Realistic development is that smaller countries will get nothing in return for sacrificing their own defense industry. Way I see it going to be for smaller EU countires, no own defense industry and forced adoption of French/German equipment that isn't even suitable for their own conditions, but no competition outside of EU will be allowed. France doesn't give a fuck about ice class of its warships, for Baltic countries, Finland and Sweden that is rather important requirement.

NH-90 shitshow is perfect example of joint European procurement. Helicopter decade behind the schedule and manufacturer lied about its readiness and stage of development. Swedes were forced to order Blackhawks due to delays in NH-90 as stopgap measure, they ordered those decade after NH-90, their UH-60M's were operational earlier and deployed into Afghanistan.

Attached: p1358794_main.jpg (752x423, 99K)

>Taiwan
You mean America?

A lot of strategists think Taiwan could probably hold off China all on its own

What China would have to do to subjugate Taiwan would make it an outcast of the modern world. No one would trade with them after they kill millions of civilians. Considering China is an economy and nation completely dependent on imports, it's almost not an option for them to take Taiwan.

Attached: 1523474171051.jpg (500x351, 59K)

Ambush and scoot, thats why camouflage has so much emphasises

Attached: IMG_20160512_173222.jpg (2400x3200, 2.08M)

For some reason many small countries with shit equipment have better soldiers than murica and all those over teched armies.
It is almost like those countries have forgotten importance of good training.

wot is the VOC you absolute negror

youtu.be/ewCs5CF5HEg
>be not even a country
>create the first stock market
>submiss the spanish empire

educate urself

Attached: 1549423064142.jpg (669x960, 124K)

>Think Israel
Not everyone has a total ethnic lockdown on all media produced, the world's banking system, and half the billionaire class on their side bro.

>America
You mean the 51 overseas provinces of imperial China?

bumping

Salty Amerishits will hate this, but it's true.

Learn how to make every inch of advancement into your territory as painful for the enemy as possible while suing for peace and/or pleading for US military support.

>EU army.
laughingwhores.png

Civilian conscription and a rifle in every home. Heavy investment into man portable antitank and antiair (US military has spent decades countering back and forth o these, they're good force equalizers). And finally a hefty investment into cyber/nuke if you have the option

This.
When the entire population is a potential militia, with some of the reservists going a few steps further by acquiring sufficient, modern field gear of their own, you don't just march in to their country and start talking hit.

Attached: Reserviläis harjoittelua - Suomen Sotilas 2016.jpg (1083x946, 480K)

I'm going to take your post literally:

>how can a small country DEFEND itself

For defence you need to quickly call upon your military aged males. So conscription is mandatory. It gives you a cheap soldier/workforce that can handle the day-to-day shit like cooking meals, driving trucks etc.
Have a reliable rifle that will not require much maintenance/logistics, which is preferably produced in your own country.
Then you stock up on artillery pieces and good quality anti-air and anti tank weapons.

You are now basically equipped to fight a defensive war.

Don't waste money on an airforce. Your airspace is small, and will be easily covered by AA. Instead of using costly airstrikes use your artillery pieces. Remember that your country is small and you can probably cover most of it with your artillery.

>inb4 EU army

This is what the authoritarian fucks in brussels would like you to believe is a solution.

But the EU army would be OFFENSIVE / EXPEDITIONARY in nature.

They want their own little iraqi oil adventuresand go full Tiananmen Square on opposition within the EU: brexiteers, catalonians, wrongthinkers etc.

Countries are an outdated and obsolete concept, Europe should unite in to one single entity.

By investing in nuclear weapons.

Who would want to invade a small state? Think about, say, Transnistria. They are poor, small, unrecognized, and even Spain could steamroll it in a week (if you managed to convince the Spanish recruits that fighting doesn't count as work). But what exactly do you gain by this conquest? You just destroyed any productive assets they have, they weren't a threat to your country, and now you have to explain to your citizens why your soldiers were killed.

NOOOOOO STOP YOU CAN'T HAVE NUKES ONLY WE'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE NUKES NO NO NO STOP IT AHHHHHHHH

Attached: 1516788560830.jpg (700x700, 68K)

Regional powers are just as outdated. Single world government is the only way forward.

Ask the Hapsburgs about multiethnic armies.

All they have to do is blockade the island. ggnore

You entire argument was based on uniting for greater efficiency, but if you have to divide the design/manufacturing/assembly process piece meal so everyone gets a fair share then any potential increase in efficiency gets thrown out the window. Look at Airbus and how they have failed to compete with Boeing because their planes cost too damn much from having each piece produced in a different country and then (very expensively) transported for final assembly in France. Your "argument" is total fiction.
Because a multi-ethnic Army worked SOOOOO well for the Austo-Hungarians right?

Attached: 1531218853428.png (211x173, 75K)

bump

bump2

1. Nuclear Weapons, the enemy may win the war, but at terrible cost.
2. The Yugoslav solution, small professional army to hold the enemy back long enough to mobilize EVERY fighting age male into a massive partisan network.
The Germans were tied up by Tito's 800,000 strong partisan army from 1941-1945. It might be a long struggle, but eventually the enemy will fuck off.

Trust in alliances. Small country X unprepared for war loses only slightly faster than Small country X obsessively preparing for war.

Arm every citizen and make use of unmanned tech, that means unma need aromored vehicles and aircraft

Poland won nothing. The country and population were annihilated.

They just went from german occupation to 50 years of soviet occupation resulting in the impoverishment of the people, alcoholism (along other social and health problems), unemployment and the destruction of the country's economy and industrial capabilities in the 90s.

Even West Germany and the DDR had a better post-war development and situation than Poland.

kys

Attached: 1520967573795.jpg (564x725, 94K)

How that's gonna stop air raids?

Habsburgs had one of the best European militaries for half a millennium you dumb retards.

Don't try to stop them. Just go full guerilla. Make the country so full of IED that it cost more to occupy than to leave and call it a day.

Based eastern bloc nation

Its not that hard and its all about deterrence.

South Africa had a pool of 5 million whites to recruit from and built a very potent and well equipped military of ~500 000 men, a large air-force (160+ fighters and strike aircraft) and a small deterrent based navy (subs and strike-craft) with defense spending at 5% GDP.

If your country doesnt have expensive social programs to fund, then it is very doable. Conscription is necessary, as is maintaining strong and deployable reserve formations.

Your reserves are key, for example
>the late 1980's
>the war in Angola was in its final stage
>the standing army was ~130 000 strong
>about 15 000 men on the Angolan border.
>It was decided that a show of force was required to get the Cubans back to the negotiation table
>so over 48 hours a further 180 000 reservists were activated and sent to (very visible) staging areas across the country.
>looking as though they were gunna go north, into Namibia and on to Angola
>Russian sattelights picked these movements up
>Told the Cubans
>Cubans shat the bed
>Negotiations resumed

Its about building up a strong deterrent force, driving up the perceived costs of any conflict with you. So, yeah, you could invade me and win, but its going to be very expensive for you - are you sure its worth it?

Attached: 11203700_1021407854538561_3703135709483032897_n.jpg (960x640, 59K)