Most bridges here do, and often when one needs to be demolished and rebuilt, the military blows it up just for practice.
Edit: Source for the sceptics
The deep demolition, which became a central element in Finnish post-war demolition tactics, and especially the development of readiness to counter surprise attacks that emerged as a threat scenario in the 1960s, received significant support immediately after the wars. The decision concerning structural demolition preparations for bridges was made on January 15, 1946. These preparations meant building charge wells, charge chambers, charge pipes, and charge hooks. Authorities responsible for constructing bridges were required to include the aforementioned structures in their plans, which significantly improved the readiness to destroy the bridges.
If it was not possible to place the charge space inside the abutment or pier, charge hooks could be embedded in the supports during the casting phase, to which the charges could then be attached.
Yeah cold war logic was paranoid. Nuclear bunkers in essentially every building built during the cold war, highway segements were built with fighter jet landing capabilities. And yeah I believe many bridges have explosive “capabilities”.
I call that pragmatic, not paranoid.
Sometimes paranoia is pragmatic
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.
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
It’s better to have a plan and not have to use it than the other way around.