Do Total Defense Strategies Increase State Resiliency?
Do Total Defense Strategies Increase State Resiliency?
by , for the Irregular Warfare Initiative
Total defense encompasses a government’s strategy and related policies which combine and extend the concepts of military and civilian defense. The concept entails developing a high level of readiness for the state and its society to secure a nation in case of war or to prepare the population for a crisis or natural disaster. Some have argued that total defense can also deter external aggression by opponents. This whole of society endeavor “is united by a shared threat perception and willingness to do what is needed.”
This article offers a rigorous examination of how smaller nations approach comprehensive national defense. Focusing on countries like Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Singapore, and Taiwan, the research explores a whole-of-society approach to national security that mobilizes entire populations against potential threats, particularly from larger adversaries like Russia and China.
The piece reveals that total defense strategies are not confined to demographically uniform societies. Countries with significant social fractionalization, such as Estonia and Singapore, successfully implement these approaches by fostering a shared threat perception. Key findings highlight a notable correlation between total defense adoption and increased public trust in government, with some nations experiencing up to a 21% rise in governmental confidence.
Surprisingly, the research demonstrates that while these strategies do not statistically increase governmental resilience—as measured by World Bank and Fragile States Index metrics—they represent a critical adaptive response to contemporary security challenges. This analysis unpacks various implementation models, from Singapore’s six-pillar defense concept to Finland’s legally mandated resistance framework, illustrating the nuanced approaches different nations employ.
The authors provocatively conclude that total defense may be less about measurable institutional strength and more about creating a unified societal response to potential threats. It raises crucial questions for future research, including the long-term deterrent value of such strategies and the specific criteria for their implementation.
