this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2026
582 points (99.0% liked)

Mildly Interesting

25445 readers
944 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Most bridges here do, and often when one needs to be demolished and rebuilt, the military blows it up just for practice.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 22 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Isn't that a swiss thing as well?

[–] FundMECFS@piefed.zip 14 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah cold war logic was paranoid. Nuclear bunkers in essentially every building built during the cold war, highway segements were built with fighter jet landing capabilities. And yeah I believe many bridges have explosive “capabilities”.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 20 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I call that pragmatic, not paranoid.

[–] FundMECFS@piefed.zip 2 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (4 children)

Ehhh when you’re an officially neutral nation with immense financial power surrounded by West Germany, France, Austria (also neutral), and Italy. And you’re on good terms and deeply financially intertwined with NATO.

I feel like having people in your population be homeless and die of lack of medical treatment is a bigger priority than inflating the already massive military budget and capability.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 6 points 11 hours ago

yeah its like if your only neighbor is the usa you don't need to worry about any invasions or anything. and I mean moreso if its germany who has never in their history been violent.

[–] Iconoclast@feddit.uk 4 points 12 hours ago

It's better to have a plan and not have to use it than the other way around.

[–] mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

You say that like Switzerland simply sat back and watched everyone else fight. Switzerland was only able to stay neutral because they were able to repel invasions extremely effectively. If they got conquered, they wouldn’t be able to remain neutral. Switzerland’s continued neutrality hinges on them being able to effectively defend their borders. Basically, they need to force any potential invaders to do the math and go “nah, it’s actually not worth invading. The benefits we would get aren’t going to outweigh the losses…”

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 3 points 11 hours ago

Can you truly be neutral if you can't defend yourself on your own? Switzerland made sure they can STAY neutral if the nazis try something again

[–] Frostbeard@lemmy.world 9 points 18 hours ago

Norway as well