Right? They don't necessarily need their own army, but they need some military might with vested interest (whether through treaties or outright monetary payments or culture or whatever) in their sovereignty.

I've been thinking about it lately with regard to Trump's talk of isolationism and withdrawal from NATO and whatnot. There are predictions that Russia will annex more Eastern European states, but at some level if the state can't protect itself what business does it have being considered one? That's kind of the only real obligation or definition of the state.

Those countries are currently protected by the US, so they are currently filling that obligation, but I'm not sure I see why it's in my interest as an American to enforce this arbitrary political line. We don't have much cultural history or overlap with them. It seems in their and the rest of Europe's best interest to band together through treaties to protect themselves.

I know this comes across as "might makes right", which I don't agree with at the local level, but at the sovereign level I'm beginning to think that's all that matters.

Costa Rica permanently abolished its army in 1949. OK, they probably had one when the country was created, but they seem to do well these days without one.

Lichtenstain, the Vatican and San Marino disagree. Unless you count in fervent catholic bodies as an army

You might want to do a little fact checking before making bogus statements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_arme...