Iceland's not really playing the same game as the rest of us. Their geography (GIUK gap) means that they are the only NATO member who can get away with not having any actual military. It is a...
Iceland's not really playing the same game as the rest of us. Their geography (GIUK gap) means that they are the only NATO member who can get away with not having any actual military. It is a ridiculously advantageous position if you're going for disarmament.
Looking into it a bit, wikipedia's Order of "Battle" for the defense of Iceland lists their EOD squad. That's the smallest unit I've seen in a national Order of Battle by a long shot. Their biggest gun afaict is a 40mm Bofors on the coast guard flagship. If it wasn't for "mutual" defense, they'd be armed or under foreign rule.
This all is evidenced by the large score gap after Iceland: their 1.124 is followed by Denmark with 1.31, after which the entire rabble of peaceful, progressive democracies follow in short order, with ~ten more countries in the 1.31-1.35 range.
I'm reminded of the notion of security as a commodity that can be exported and imported. Iirc Perun introduced me to that. I reckon once that's accounted for, Iceland might look like less of an outlier.
I haven't read the report yet, but the index must be more than just disarmament - for example, Costa Rica has no standing military at all - it was abolished after their 1948 civil war - but they...
I haven't read the report yet, but the index must be more than just disarmament - for example, Costa Rica has no standing military at all - it was abolished after their 1948 civil war - but they are ranked #39.
There's a bunch. Stuff like violent crime, international conflicts, number of refugees, political instability, terrorism could all explain the difference. Stuff where I wouldn't expect Iceland to...
There's a bunch. Stuff like violent crime, international conflicts, number of refugees, political instability, terrorism could all explain the difference. Stuff where I wouldn't expect Iceland to be markedly better than Ireland or New Zealand for example.
Though with some of the ones I found I have a hard time associating them with increased peace...
Iceland's not really playing the same game as the rest of us. Their geography (GIUK gap) means that they are the only NATO member who can get away with not having any actual military. It is a ridiculously advantageous position if you're going for disarmament.
Looking into it a bit, wikipedia's Order of "Battle" for the defense of Iceland lists their EOD squad. That's the smallest unit I've seen in a national Order of Battle by a long shot. Their biggest gun afaict is a 40mm Bofors on the coast guard flagship. If it wasn't for "mutual" defense, they'd be armed or under foreign rule.
This all is evidenced by the large score gap after Iceland: their 1.124 is followed by Denmark with 1.31, after which the entire rabble of peaceful, progressive democracies follow in short order, with ~ten more countries in the 1.31-1.35 range.
I'm reminded of the notion of security as a commodity that can be exported and imported. Iirc Perun introduced me to that. I reckon once that's accounted for, Iceland might look like less of an outlier.
I haven't read the report yet, but the index must be more than just disarmament - for example, Costa Rica has no standing military at all - it was abolished after their 1948 civil war - but they are ranked #39.
Being ranked 39th as a Latin American country is exceptional.
There's a bunch. Stuff like violent crime, international conflicts, number of refugees, political instability, terrorism could all explain the difference. Stuff where I wouldn't expect Iceland to be markedly better than Ireland or New Zealand for example.
Though with some of the ones I found I have a hard time associating them with increased peace...