what sort of military does iceland have?
813086
i don't think they have one since thier population is only about 270 k, even if they did i don't think it would be affective, maybe they are armed with cans of coke since they are the worlds largest consumers on coke.
355342
Israel has the Moussad, an elite counter terrorism unit.\nSouth Korea has the Rocks, which would be an equivalent to our Rangers. The "Sand Box" has Al Quadia, and Osama Bin Ladin, well versed in terrorism. Our friends in Brittain have SAS.
334713
How can you have a private defense system in this country separate from the military...and expect it to work?
1086010
The Japanese people do, in fact, have their own military forces. What they do not have are "offensive" military forces.\nThe Japanese military is actually names the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces, and they were created as a result of the signing of the treaty to end thier participation in WWII aboard the USS Missouri. The fact that they do not have an offensive military is actually written into their constitution, and the only way that they can truly have their fighting forces back is to change their constitution.
382885
Vikings as the people up north?\n\nVikings were Norse warriors who raided the coasts of Scandinavia, the British Isles, and other parts of Europe from the late 8th century to the 11th century.\n\nIn short they are the earliest raider/nomad/warriors.\n\nHorned helmets\n\nApart from two or three representations of (ritual) helmets with protrusions that may be either snakes or horns, no depiction of Viking Age warriors' helmets, and no actually preserved helmet, has horns.\n\nVikings had in a few hundred years colonized the coasts and rivers of Europe, the islands of Shetland, Orkney, the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Greenland, and even a short expedition to Newfoundland, circa AD 1000.
754886
Japan's military actually was the government during WWII\nThe web site below gives a quick summary of the Japanese government from 1916 to 1945.\n\nhttp://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2129.html
737956
I'm pretty sure it's Iceland. I lived there for a while and remember hearing something about that.
318841
Israel's army, man for man is among the best.Their number is small,but they make up for that with superior training and a lotta good technology.It's true that every male over 18, puts 2 yrs in the IDF(Israeli Defense Force).Their reserves are trained to be combat ready in under 8hrs.It's serious business for them.The S. Korean ROK Marines are in the same situation, and are no less capable(in my mind anyway)\n  As for superpower status;I think not even though they are believed to have both tactical, and strategic weapons.I think "armed to the teeth. and then some"is more accurate.
780559
Sveinn Björnsson- First president of Iceland\nJón Sigurðsson- Leader of the Icelandic Independence Movement
817732
the different branches?\nAir Force\nMarines\nArmy\nNavy\n\nthere are also reserves and guard and Coast Guard
474481
no. altho they do have one. i think w/ the WW2 treaties it limits them.
254696
backpackglobe.com/.../news/recent_tales/trip_to_iceland_part1.asp backpackglobe.com/.../news/recent_tales/trip_to_iceland_part2.asp\n  Try these two.   hope they point you in the right direction.   Great place.
1102761
Iceland got its modern name from another visitor, the Norwegian Viking Flóki Vilgerðarson. The Landnámabók makes it clear that Flóki chose the uninviting name Ísland ("ice land") for the view of a distant fjord full of sea-ice that he glimpsed from a tall mountain. No doubt his choice was influenced by the fact that he was not at first taken with the land, and he bad-mouthed the place after his return to Norway. But eventually he changed his mind about it and moved there himself. The Landnámabók account is at odds with the common notion that Iceland was named for its glaciers, some of which are bigger than any in Europe. \n\nYou sometimes hear the story that Iceland was so named to discourage excessive immigration, but there seems to be no basis for this claim. Even if it's true, it didn't work very well. Between about 870 and 930, a period called the landnám, productive land in Iceland was free for the taking to all comers, and thousands of people immigrated from Norway, which was in political upheaval at the time. Landnám is usually translated "settlement," but "land grab" is a more literal translation and comes closer to the point. Incidentally, the Irish priests disappeared around the beginning of the landnám, probably muttering to themselves, "There goes the neighborhood." \n\nGreenland got its name because its inhabitants sported blue-green skin from living near the sea. At least that's what Adam of Bremen wrote (in Latin) in the eleventh century. As the old proverb says, "A fool, unless he knows Latin, is never a great fool." I think it's safe to say that Adam of Bremen was a great fool, at least on this point. \n\nThe real story behind the name is given in Erik the Red's Saga, based on oral tradition and written down in the early thirteenth century in Iceland. After the Icelandic landnám was over, Erik the Red and his father Thorvald were forced to leave Norway because one or both of them was involved in killings (details are not given). After Thorvald died, Erik was involved in yet more killings, for which his punishment was three years' vacation--er, I mean banishment from Iceland. (And you thought O. J. got off easy.) \n\nHe used the time to explore the rumored lands to the west. When his term of banishment expired, he returned to Icleand to invite his neighbors and friends to settle the new country with him. He purposely chose the pleasant name Grænland ("green land") to attract settlers, but the choice wasn't exactly misleading. Some parts of Greenland, especially the parts the Norse settled, really are green, as these pictures from the tourist board attest (www.greenland-guide.dk/outdoor_life_photo.htm). He may have been a killer, but at least he wasn't a real-estate scam-artist. He didn't have that much to gain by lying anyway, since he didn't charge anyone for the land. As in Iceland a century before, the land was free for the taking. Natives had lived in the area in the past, but at the time of Erik's voyage, only the northern part of Greenland was occupied by the Inuit (Eskimos). \n\nThe unoccupied land in southern Greenland really was of much higher quality than anything that remained unclaimed in Iceland. The greenery that most interested the settlers was the pasturage, which was good enough to support their sheep, goats, horses, swine, and cattle. The Norsemen lived on the milk and meat from their livestock, supplemented with their catch of caribou, small game, fish, and sea mammals. No doubt they also partook of sea-bird eggs and berries. They were able to grow some grain (probably barley), but they must have had to import some as well. They also imported luxury goods, such as wine and silk. They could afford the imports because they sold wool, hides, and walrus and narwhal tusks. The last two items especially were in high demand in Europe. The trade continued for hundreds of years despite
1021785
I do not Know if they DO NOT have armies but they are neutral countries who will not participate in any war, but some have their own army for security only :\nSewden\nSwizerland\nAustria \nCosta Rica \nIreland \nLiechtenstein \nFinland \nTurkmenistan\n\nI have used Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to obtain the answer
950259
Iceland is not that dangerous to live in actually. It's safer than most other countries in the world. We do have volcanoes, earthquakes, avalanches and other natural disasters, but they don't pose that big a threat if you know how to be careful and how to react when something happens.\n\nAvalanches are a threat in some villages, but most of the country is safe from avalanches. Strong earthquakes are rare and because Icelandic buildings are very strong and built to endure earthquakes, even strong earthquakes don't do much harm. Volcanoes only pose a threat in some areas and they are observed carefully by scientists so that those areas can be evacuated quickly if needed, which is almost never necessary.\n\nVery few people die in natural disasters in Iceland and the crime rate is very low and less people die in accidents than in most other places and there is good health care and high standards of living, so you are actually a lot safer in Iceland than in most other places in the world. You just need to learn a few basic survival skills about our natural phenomenons and that's it. :)
1115323
TRY AND THINK OF THE ISERALIAN DEFENSE FORCE THEY HAVE SNIPERS.
894587
Our armed forces are much better suited to fighting conventional forces than insurgencies. This is true of most armies.