589
Most bridges here do, and often when one needs to be demolished and rebuilt, the military blows it up just for practice.
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2026
589 points (99.0% liked)
Mildly Interesting
25445 readers
949 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
It's better to have a plan and not have to use it than the other way around.
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…”
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