Initial Officer Selection

[Fuchs]

I suspect that an objective look at Switzerland would show that it wasn't just their "credible defense" that allowed for peace. For example, it's quite often convenient (for a number of reasons) for belligerent powers to have a "neutral zone" where they can conduct business (and if you doubt this, look at the activities of the OSS and other groups in Switzerland during World War II as well as the banking habits of certain other powers during that same conflict).

Canaris saved Switzerland in 1940, but without their overt defence-readiness and non-intervention policy he wouldn't have been able to do so.
(It was the Swiss' overt army strength and fortification strength that allowed him to bluff and tell Hitler that Switzerland would be a too tough nut, while he had in fact long-obtained detailed and correct construction drawings and locations for every single Swiss fortification thanks to fabulous Humint.)

Spain and Portugal are fine examples for countries which could get along as neutral countries just fine. Sweden did well, too.


Besides; I was rather writing about deterrence and non-aggression policy than about neutrality. Defensive alliances that do not turn aggressive may be fine.

Repeat:

Deterrence was proved to be a failure?

I suspect our survival of the Cold War, the history of Switzerland and Sweden as well as a lot of other examples beg to differ.

Occasionally deterrence is not perfect, but it's the prime mechanism to preserve peace next to good relations and not proved to be a failure at all.