4 ms·

In this case Switzerland seems to be a pretty good choice: compulsory military service, difficult terrain, nuclear power plants (and with them the infrastructur

In this case Switzerland seems to be a pretty good choice: compulsory military service, difficult terrain, nuclear power plants (and with them the infrastructure to build the bomb)

Abishek_Muthian 7y ago
Conscription is not as effective as a regular volunteer force. Atomic weapons or other WMD goes against the ethos of neutral countries which traditionally are pro-Human Rights. But I understand where you are coming at, perhaps it is because major military nations poses A-Bombs. I guess, if they are democratic countries we have no choice but to hope that their citizens can prevent it from getting used; My real worry is the non-democratic/pseudo democratic countries with A-Bombs. Edit : N-Bomb->A-Bomb.
- pgeorgi 7y ago
  > Conscription is not as effective as a regular volunteer force. Switzerland's terrain wouldn't see regular war but guerilla warfare (including mined bridges and everything). Having trained marksmen in almost every household helps a lot in such a situation. > Atomic weapons or other WMD goes against the ethos of neutral countries which traditionally are pro-Human Rights. I think Switzerland would adopt a "whatever it takes" approach when attacked. At least that's what they credibly project, and so it's unlikely that they'll end up having to play it out.
- leppr 7y ago
  > I guess, if they are democratic countries we have no choice but to hope that their citizens can prevent it from getting used; There exist no country in the world where citizens have any say on nuclear weapon use. "Pseudo democracy" is the norm.
  - Abishek_Muthian 7y ago
    I didn't mean, they have a say in pushing the button. But, they have a say in electing someone who maintains restraint and not a warmonger.
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  The the short form of nuclear weapons is conventionally a-bomb. A n-bomb is more likely to refer to use of a slavery related term, and is very frequently used in some circles which include the current US president. So demonstrably democracy does not prevent the use of n-bombs, which happens to be true historically for a-bombs as well (which were used by a democracy essentially because the war wasn't over by the time they've built the thing).
  - Abishek_Muthian 7y ago
    Thanks edited. >which were used by a democracy essentially because the war wasn't over by the time they've built the thing). But the same U.S. President Harry S. Truman relieved General of the Army Douglas MacArthur when he wanted to drop A-Bomb on China during the Korean War.
    - SiempreViernes 7y ago
      True, he did learn from that mistake, though it is still fair to criticise him for committing it in the first place and to point out that the democratic principles the USA espoused at the time did not save Nagasaki.
microtherion 7y ago
Yeah, that's what we LIKE the others to think. Realistically, our armed forces are at a strength of about 140K soldiers right now (pretty sure that's not a state secret). The parts of the terrain that are actually inhabited are not particularly forbidding (let them build their RISC processors in a hut nestled beside an 8500ft mountain pass. Don't forget to bring popcorn as you watch them). And nuclear power plants make a big fat bombing target for opponents too lazy to make their own dirty bombs. Conveniently placed smack in the middle of the inhabitable part of Switzerland, too.
- beatgammit 7y ago
  According to Wikipedia [1], you have ~160k active military with ~1.5M that could be conscripted. That's not huge, but it's enough to give an enemy a bad time, especially with the Swiss terrain and strategic defenses. And I'm sure they'd have a bunch of other countries willing to back them up, depending on the belligerent. I highly doubt it'll come to that. It would be much easier to just infiltrate the fab and replace stock going to an important destination. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Armed_Forces https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Armed_Forces
  - microtherion 7y ago
    160k may have been accurate 2 years ago, but the number is shrinking continuously: https://interaktiv.tagesanzeiger.ch/2019/militaer/bestand.svg https://interaktiv.tagesanzeiger.ch/2019/militaer/bestand.sv... > it's enough to give an enemy a bad time That depends a lot on the objective, I think. The defenses against an enemy controlling the transalpine transportation axes are fairly strong. But I think this scenario gets talked up a lot for exactly that reason. The defenses against an enemy controlling 80% of the population and 90% of the economy are much weaker. Then again, it might only take a few sysadmins armed with SQL queries to deal significant economic damage against any attacker. > It would be much easier to just infiltrate the fab and replace stock going to an important destination. True. And if I've understood the article correctly, no fabs would be changing location. RISC-V is an open source design, so the fabs in question would probably be located in the "enemy" countries anyway.
  - 7y ago

In this case Switzerland seems to be a pretty good choice: compulsory military service, difficult terrain, nuclear power plants (and with them the infrastructure to build the bomb)

Abishek_Muthian 7y ago

Conscription is not as effective as a regular volunteer force. Atomic weapons or other WMD goes against the ethos of neutral countries which traditionally are pro-Human Rights. But I understand where you are coming at, perhaps it is because major military nations poses A-Bombs. I guess, if they are democratic countries we have no choice but to hope that their citizens can prevent it from getting used; My real worry is the non-democratic/pseudo democratic countries with A-Bombs. Edit : N-Bomb->A-Bomb.

pgeorgi 7y ago
> Conscription is not as effective as a regular volunteer force. Switzerland's terrain wouldn't see regular war but guerilla warfare (including mined bridges and everything). Having trained marksmen in almost every household helps a lot in such a situation. > Atomic weapons or other WMD goes against the ethos of neutral countries which traditionally are pro-Human Rights. I think Switzerland would adopt a "whatever it takes" approach when attacked. At least that's what they credibly project, and so it's unlikely that they'll end up having to play it out.
leppr 7y ago
> I guess, if they are democratic countries we have no choice but to hope that their citizens can prevent it from getting used; There exist no country in the world where citizens have any say on nuclear weapon use. "Pseudo democracy" is the norm.
- Abishek_Muthian 7y ago
  I didn't mean, they have a say in pushing the button. But, they have a say in electing someone who maintains restraint and not a warmonger.
SiempreViernes 7y ago
The the short form of nuclear weapons is conventionally a-bomb. A n-bomb is more likely to refer to use of a slavery related term, and is very frequently used in some circles which include the current US president. So demonstrably democracy does not prevent the use of n-bombs, which happens to be true historically for a-bombs as well (which were used by a democracy essentially because the war wasn't over by the time they've built the thing).
- Abishek_Muthian 7y ago
  Thanks edited. >which were used by a democracy essentially because the war wasn't over by the time they've built the thing). But the same U.S. President Harry S. Truman relieved General of the Army Douglas MacArthur when he wanted to drop A-Bomb on China during the Korean War.
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    True, he did learn from that mistake, though it is still fair to criticise him for committing it in the first place and to point out that the democratic principles the USA espoused at the time did not save Nagasaki.

microtherion 7y ago

Yeah, that's what we LIKE the others to think. Realistically, our armed forces are at a strength of about 140K soldiers right now (pretty sure that's not a state secret). The parts of the terrain that are actually inhabited are not particularly forbidding (let them build their RISC processors in a hut nestled beside an 8500ft mountain pass. Don't forget to bring popcorn as you watch them). And nuclear power plants make a big fat bombing target for opponents too lazy to make their own dirty bombs. Conveniently placed smack in the middle of the inhabitable part of Switzerland, too.

beatgammit 7y ago
According to Wikipedia [1], you have ~160k active military with ~1.5M that could be conscripted. That's not huge, but it's enough to give an enemy a bad time, especially with the Swiss terrain and strategic defenses. And I'm sure they'd have a bunch of other countries willing to back them up, depending on the belligerent. I highly doubt it'll come to that. It would be much easier to just infiltrate the fab and replace stock going to an important destination. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Armed_Forces https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Armed_Forces
- microtherion 7y ago
  160k may have been accurate 2 years ago, but the number is shrinking continuously: https://interaktiv.tagesanzeiger.ch/2019/militaer/bestand.svg https://interaktiv.tagesanzeiger.ch/2019/militaer/bestand.sv... > it's enough to give an enemy a bad time That depends a lot on the objective, I think. The defenses against an enemy controlling the transalpine transportation axes are fairly strong. But I think this scenario gets talked up a lot for exactly that reason. The defenses against an enemy controlling 80% of the population and 90% of the economy are much weaker. Then again, it might only take a few sysadmins armed with SQL queries to deal significant economic damage against any attacker. > It would be much easier to just infiltrate the fab and replace stock going to an important destination. True. And if I've understood the article correctly, no fabs would be changing location. RISC-V is an open source design, so the fabs in question would probably be located in the "enemy" countries anyway.
- 7y ago