2 ms·
> However, both sides (pro/anti) should by now agree on the need to HAVE an military of substantial size. What seems to be happening is that priority is given
by sebcat 10y ago
> However, both sides (pro/anti) should by now agree on the need to HAVE an military of substantial size.
What seems to be happening is that priority is given to projects that benefit certain companies, rather than increasing military capabilities. Investments are made in platforms such as Gripen[1], A26[2], Visby[3], PRIO (licensed SAP system) rather than giving priority to training and maintaining personnel. The mentioned projects are relatively expensive and low volume and there are a lot of people in the armed forces who would rather see the focus shifted from those projects to the armed forces. Unless you're air force or navy and get to play with new toys, I guess. Meanwhile, the army and the amphibious corps are less happy.
It is not likely that we'll see the size needed for quite some time.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A26_submarine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A26_submarine
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby-class_corvette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby-class_corvette
- jacobush 10y agoThis is what is happening. I still hope (maybe in vain) that the rest will ramp up too and that will build political clout for the army and the civil defence that will need to be rebuilt. But it's not surprising that the first initiatives would be money heavy corporate spending. After all, the last couple of decades, "government doing military duties" has increasingly translated to "selling fortifications cheaply and spend time with industry lobbyists". The toys are nice but we need boots on the ground. And civil defence. Do I repeat myself?