8 ms·
Call to arms: Sweden raises defense spending by 40% in 5 years
- zalkota 6y agoGood, the US shouldn’t be paying for other countries defenses!
- skinkestek 6y agoFWIW: Sweden is not a member of NATO.
- AWildC182 6y agoSweden isn't a NATO member state so any trumpist arguments regarding the 2% GDP expenditure number are moot.
- goatinaboat 6y agotrumpist arguments regarding the 2% GDP expenditure Trump did not invent the 2% target, that was agreed by NATO in 2006! And again in 2014.
- blackguardx 6y agoThe admin said they banned this account 6 days ago. Are bans temporay?
- torwayburger 6y agoIncreasing number of low quality comments like this is a problem here.
- justinclift 6y agohttps://archive.vn/OY77V https://archive.vn/OY77V
- gok 6y ago> It promises the country’s largest military expansion for 70 years In the 1960s Sweden was months from an atomic bomb and had pretty solid plans for at least 2 legs of a nuclear triad. This may be the largest expansion by expenditure but it’s a relatively small change in posture.
- stefanfisk 6y agoYeah, the wording is a bit sensationalist. The expansion has never been this quick, but we spent more than 3% of GDP in the 70s. https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/om-forsvarsmakten/darfor-finns-forsvarsmakten/ekonomisk-redovisning/ https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/om-forsvarsmakten/darfor-fi...
- rmrfstar 6y agoFor context, Sweden's defense budget (USD 5.8b) is smaller than the NYPD's budget (USD 6.0b) [1]. That's kind of amazing when you think about it. With it's budget, Sweden is able to fund an indigenous fighter program [2]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/20/nyregion/defund-police-nypd-budget.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/20/nyregion/defu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen
- skinkestek 6y agoFor context, a case originally from 2013: https://www.businessinsider.com/nato-report-russia-sweden-nuclear-2016-2?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/nato-report-russia-sweden-nu...
- c-smile 6y ago"The threat from Russia prompts a bill to raise defence spending by 40% in five years" For those of US who are geographically impaired: Russia and Sweden have no common borders.
- AWildC182 6y agoStockholm is ~300mi from both St Petersburg and Kaliningrad. That's cheap cruise missile range.
- cpach 6y agoAnd we’re connected in a way via the Baltic Sea.
- torwayburger 6y agoIt shouldn't have to be explained at all. It makes perfect sense that the US spends money to protect itself from adversaries it shares no borders with for example. The above argument makes no sense, objectively.
- c-smile 6y ago"It shouldn't have to be explained at all" Why not? People shall chew that gum without any criticism? Otherwise you will have another round of believing in Lebensraum because that corporal did say so ...
- cpach 6y agoI mentioned it as a bit of context since perhaps not all HN readers are familiar with the geography of the area in question. People here are from all around the world so I don’t expect every reader to be familiar with Sweden, Russia and the Baltic Sea. For example, some reader might think ”okey but to reach Sweden, Russia will first have to go through Finland or Norway”. Nope. They simply have to send their military fleet over the sea. Case in point: A lot of Sweden’s military resources during the WW2 and cold war was focused on the island of Gotland, home to less than 60000 persons. If Russia would attack Sweden it would make a lot of sense to first gain control of Gotland and then use that as a base for taking Stockholm, the capital.
- PaywallBuster 6y agoThis 40% increase only leads up to a 1.5% GDP being used on defense, well under many other countries
- RedShift1 6y agoWhy is military spending always defined as relative to GDP and not to total tax income, where the actual money is coming from?
- momokoko 6y agoBecause there is no such thing as “actual money” in countries that have fiat currency. So it wouldn’t actually make any sense to do that.
- dingle_thunk 6y agoTaxation policy can be changed. As a strategic matter, during wartime, the economic output of the entire country can be redirected to war efforts. Relative economic output of different forces is a major determining factor in war outcomes. The percentage of GDP during peace-time serves as an indicator of readiness for war. It is worth noting that Sweden staved off the USSR during the cold war with this very cleverly designed tank: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSNNNMYmTKQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSNNNMYmTKQ
- m_eiman 6y ago” It is worth noting that Sweden only managed to stave off the USSR thanks to their preparedness, and this very cleverly designed tank” You probably mean the cold war, not ww2? Sweden didn’t (directly) fight the USSR during ww2, and was famously unprepared at the start of the war.
- dingle_thunk 6y agoThanks. Amended my comment there, knew something about it felt off. Mostly just wanted to point out a cool and important tank :)
- lambdasquirrel 6y agoIt's worth noting that the intended size of the Swedish military is still tiny, compared to U.S. standards. 72 artillery pieces is what they're aiming for, and three mechanized brigades. The U.S. deploys a force of that size as a tripwire.
- mdoms 6y agoIt's not meaningful to compare military sizes to US standards. America is a clear outlier.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- xornox 6y agoBut nordic countries defend each other. You should check combined force. How strong is army of Alabama? Comparison between Sweden and USA is not very fair.
- refurb 6y agoHow strong is army of Alabama? Pretty strong actually. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Army_National_Guard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Army_National_Guard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Army_National_Guard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Army_National_Guard
- lambdasquirrel 6y agoYes, and the EU would certainly not sit by. I could've gone into depth about how the Russian army is only able to support maybe 120,000 troops in the field today, but thought it would be pedantic.
- Barrin92 6y agoIt's very surprising and in my opinion very positive that they managed to bring conscription back in 2017. I was one of the last few age groups to go through mandatory service in Germany before they abolished it, and since then it seems like the army has huge problems getting people both in sufficient quantity and quality, not to mention it also serves an important domestic function of keeping civilian oversight in the military.
- someperson 6y agoInstead of forcing people to do something (through conscription), it's ideal to make people want to do it voluntarily (through providing good pay, conditions and maybe generous matching of retirement contributions etc)
- DSingularity 6y agoYeah? You sure about that? What you will end up with is more propaganda, war glorification, and more targeting of teenagers.
- yongjik 6y agoIt's not like the war machine will stop feeding more propaganda and glorifying war, just because they get to take a year or two out of every citizen. After all, you want these soldiers to be ready to fight and think dying for the country is the greatest possible honor. Under conscription, that would be everyone.
- fsloth 6y agoI don't think you understand the situation. Sweden has a population of 10M. Finland, next to Russia, 5M. Russia - 150M. The power imbalance is so large that the only way of making a credible defence strategy is by having the capability to mobilize a significant portion of the population for professional quality defence. This is simply not feasible without a conscription. No, I did not like my conscription (Finland) two decades ago - but I completely understand why it's necessary.
- seibelj 6y agoIt is wonderful that someone other than the USA is footing the bill for Europe’s defense. If I was a European I wouldn’t count on the USA to help in future conflicts. EDIT: The downvotes are perplexing. Why would a European want the whims of the USA to be their only protection? Defend yourselves!
- dingle_thunk 6y agoDefense is much cheaper than offense. The fact that other countries appear to spend less on defense does not mean that they are unprepared. Americans spend a lot of money on a corrupt pharmaceutical industries, and they have bad healthcare. Americans spend a lot of money on a corrupt education systems, and have stupid people. Americans spend a lot of money on a corrupt war industry, and they have a lot of rusting 1950s tanks, planes, and missiles. Without being tested, who knows if anyone actually has good defense? It requires thinking and testing, not mindlessly throwing money at charlatans.
- seibelj 6y agoAmericans will not spend their tax dollars on defending Europe, so Europeans should fund their own defense or prepare for the consequences.
- goatinaboat 6y agoDefense is much cheaper than offense. I don’t think that’s true and there are plenty of counterexamples e.g what did Saddam spend on Scuds vs what the US spent on Patriot?
- cycomanic 6y agoLet's assume the Europeans are defending themselves against Russia (I mean who else would we talk about). Russian military spending is $65 billion compared to European $289 billion, so even at low percentages of GDP the Europeans are out spending the Russians by a factor 4 (let's assume military capability is related to spending), so clearly the Europeans are financing their own defence against Russia and don't rely on the US for their defence. In fact estimated Chinese military spending is $285 billion, so Europe could defend itself against China as well (possibly even a China/Russia alliance, offinsive wars are much more expensive than defensive). So whom is the US defending the Europeans from? The only force that (based on military spending) would be a credible threat is actually the US themselves. The whole argument that the US is paying for European defence is bogus.
- timonoko 6y agoVery strange that Russians did not return to the Piss&Løve-tactics of 1970s. It worked very well, as leftist peace-movement managed to erode the defence of almost every European country. Sweden was the prime target. The Swedish "Nuclear-Free North"-initiative for example meant literally that only Russians can have Nukular Weapons in the North.
- cycomanic 6y agoIt's interesting to see all these comments about finally the Europeans are defending themselves and comparisons to the US. The US has used their forces pretty much exclusively for offensive means in the last decades. Even if the US would be reducing to their capabilities to only defend themselves and their allies they could likely cut military spending in half (this has become a bit more complex because how the US is using its military has caused China to massively expand their spending as well), but that would mean they could not enforce their economic interests everywhere in the world.
- redis_mlc 6y ago> The US has used their forces pretty much exclusively for offensive means in the last decades. You may have that impression from news articles, but in reality it doesn't make any sense. The US military has operations in the Middle East, but that involves virtually none of their ships, planes, bases, silos or troops. The primary purpose of the US military is to continue the post-WW2 Marshall Plan, which is maintaining global peace. Notice how there hasn't been any major wars since 1945? That's what American taxpayers paid for.
- mclightning 6y agoftfy: "there hasn't been any major wars since 1945 in countries where we care about death toll."
- float4 6y agoComparison of WWII and largest war since in terms of casualties[0]: WWII: 56,125,000–85,000,000 casualties. Second Congo War: 2,500,000–5,400,000 casualties. The difference is over an order of magnitude (although I'd absolutely call the Second Congo War a major war). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll
- mclightning 6y agoWW2 is a special event in human history on its own. Taking that as a reference point to evaluate our sense of peace, is pretty damning. Industrial and technological development prior to WW1 and WW2 enabled mass killing at an unprecedented level. You might say, if we don't take it as a reference point to avoid in our spectrum of peace. But then again, I am not sure there will be much of human history to talk about with another WW level conflict. So that makes the whole point of using that as a reference pretty mute. Because then it is just accepting we are living in verge of armageddon. Pretty low standards of peace if you ask me.
- hackeraccount 6y agoBring back the S-Tank! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_103 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_103