5 ms·

The real interesting part is the Swiss model, or instead of having a big army a small one with heavy weapons and a popular conscription one month (paid) per yea

by kkfx 4y ago

The real interesting part is the Swiss model, or instead of having a big army a small one with heavy weapons and a popular conscription one month (paid) per year 18-28 years range, for the rest. That's interesting because: - it's not good to go to war OUTSIDE country borders - power are balanced: the State can count (perhaps) on army, but if it goes against the people they are trained and armed, with less heavy weapons, but much bigger numbers The last missing parts is ERASING military-industrial complex or having weapons ONLY built by the State in State-owned factories out of State-only research, with conscription for manufacturing industries IF we need to scale for a war, but ONLY in this case and ONLY in emergency mode. These are the basic tools to maintain a Democracy avoid dangerous shifts.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
Powers are not balanced in Switzerland. The reason most modern countries stopped conscription is because infantrymen are far less useful than they used to be in combats - they remain useful if you want to control the place you have invaded but are not that useful to do the actual invading. Advanced weaponry is just too efficient: artillery, helicopters, planes, drones, missiles. Switzerland is not even really trying to defend itself. The chief reason it’s safe is because it’s surrounded by countries with an actual army. They rely on France for part of their air defence.
- mantas 4y ago
  Not do invading? Long-running conscription could work with advanced tech. Not 1-year-to-train-and-then-back-to-civilian-life. But train-and-then-keep-training-till-40+.
- antman 4y ago
  Which of the weapons you mentioned has capability to occupy ground? I think Ukraine taught us that 2k soldiers in a factory area can delay a much more expensive army for months or until they run out of food/ammo. Russian needed a million infantry men to have a chance of occupying UKraine. Afghanistan collapsed by mere infantry in a few weeks, only because they could not move fast enough. If one wants to occupy and keep land in today’s nationalist states, swarming is still the most viable proposition.
- kkfx 4y ago
  Hem, Swiss do have conscription, they only relaxed them a bit, for instance not allowing anymore ammo at home, just weapons, anyone can buy ammo of course but classic sealed packages for the service use only aren't anymore a thing. Mandatory bunkers and scattered cornerstones are not mandatory anymore either, but still shelters must be provided by the public, mandatory long-lasting food supply are there etc Mined roads are far less mined than before, but still there. So I think Swiss STILL care it's defense. Also my point is about protecting against foreign invasions instead of build armies to invade other countries because that's the point of peace. If we want peace dialogue is mandatory and a good weapon aside help well, si vis pacem para bellum, BUT being MUCH more able to defend instead of offend is a good stability key.
- xhevahir 4y ago
  I think they're wrong about modern Switzerland, but they raise an issue that's crossed my mind occasionally: that Athenian democracy followed the emergence of the phalanx, a technology that favored the use of large, non-specialized citizen armies, and that our current military technology is the polar opposite of that.
  - Gollapalli 4y ago
    It's the opposite. Phalanxes are the kind of thing where a break in coordination by any one man results you all getting rekt. The conflict between the Greeks and the Persians is a pretty good example of what happens when you have specialized men against a much larger force of levied up men of dubious quality. The Greeks won.
    - xhevahir 4y ago
      I probably shouldn't have used the word "non-specialized." I mean that in comparison with the armies of early Iron Age Greece the hoplite army of democratic Athens was relatively non-hierarchical, without such heavy dependence on a class of professional, full-time soldiers. (The author of this article compares that earlier type of combat to the sort of battle waged by indigenous New Guineans: https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/greek-warfare-homer/ https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/greek-warfare-... ).
- anilakar 4y ago
  > most modern countries stopped conscription is because infantrymen are far less useful than they used to be in combats The fallacy here is that conscripts == infantry, when frontline troops account for a minority of the whole force. Sweden had to overturn their decision to abolish conscription in less than a decade.
- wnkrshm 4y ago
  Less than two years ago, the Swiss air force, which is there for intercepting air space incursions had business hours [0]. [0] https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/26815-no-more-office-hours-for-swiss-air-policing-missions https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/26815-no-more-office-hour...
rob74 4y ago
...or it could be a recipe for civil war if those trained and armed people split into different factions. I don't see that happening in Switzerland, but that's probably one of the reasons why this model hasn't caught on a lot.
- mantas 4y ago
  If people do split into factions, they have to settle somehow. Of course, hopefully peacefully. Forcing society to stay coherent against it's will sounds a we... authoritarian?
- kkfx 4y ago
  Swiss is actually deeply split: German-speaking think they are the best, they have to rule, their Calvinist vision is the best etc, French-speaking populations they are the best, their social and democratic model is far superior to the raw and sore German-speaking Calvinist one, Italian-speaking populations think they are the best, a bridge between French and German groups, French-speaking ones are just hippie with too much power and richness, German-speaking are unable to enjoy life etc, Ladin/Romance populations think they are the sole real Swiss and the others oppress them just because they are numerically superior etc BUT they know being unite is needed and they choose carefully to distribute power around groups to make hard one being able to rule others or some unite against others and they choose a language no-one use (Latin) as a good symbol of "we are unite, but we are all different and together"... IMVHO this model is not accepted by most countries is because anyone like or dream power and in this model there is no absolute power by anyone so any decision need to be discussed and lobby can't do that much. Oh, it's not perfect, we see recent schizophrenic referendums rows, sure Swiss is not poor anymore, the poorest mercenaries of big European powers of the past, so they can count on being a safe harbor for anyone else etc. BUT try to compare Swiss to Lebanon (the ex-Middle-est Swiss almost anybody forgot)...
  - dotancohen 4y ago
    As you described Switzerland I immediately thought of Lebanon. Lebanon has the added complication of extraordinary interest of its two neighbors in Lebanon's internal affairs. In your opinion, could that be the difference between the successful Swiss implementation and the largely failing Lebanese implementation?
Claude_Shannon 4y ago
Popular conscription is nothing else but slavery. And sexist one, most of the time.
- Gollapalli 4y ago
  Any society without conscription is a society of human livestock, because they are defended by men not their compatriots, but their shepherds.
seneca 4y ago
Giving the state a monopoly on weapons manufacturing seems like a road to serfdom, exactly the opposite of maintaining a Democracy. One of the critical steps to every dictatorship is disarming the population.
aerostable_slug 4y ago
Someone will always go to war outside of their borders. This model works if you've got Team America: World Police keeping sea lanes of communication open and other things that require power projection. If Team America isn't doing it, someone else will step in. Like China.

by kkfx 4y ago

WastingMyTime89 4y ago

Powers are not balanced in Switzerland. The reason most modern countries stopped conscription is because infantrymen are far less useful than they used to be in combats - they remain useful if you want to control the place you have invaded but are not that useful to do the actual invading. Advanced weaponry is just too efficient: artillery, helicopters, planes, drones, missiles. Switzerland is not even really trying to defend itself. The chief reason it’s safe is because it’s surrounded by countries with an actual army. They rely on France for part of their air defence.

mantas 4y ago
Not do invading? Long-running conscription could work with advanced tech. Not 1-year-to-train-and-then-back-to-civilian-life. But train-and-then-keep-training-till-40+.
antman 4y ago
Which of the weapons you mentioned has capability to occupy ground? I think Ukraine taught us that 2k soldiers in a factory area can delay a much more expensive army for months or until they run out of food/ammo. Russian needed a million infantry men to have a chance of occupying UKraine. Afghanistan collapsed by mere infantry in a few weeks, only because they could not move fast enough. If one wants to occupy and keep land in today’s nationalist states, swarming is still the most viable proposition.
kkfx 4y ago
Hem, Swiss do have conscription, they only relaxed them a bit, for instance not allowing anymore ammo at home, just weapons, anyone can buy ammo of course but classic sealed packages for the service use only aren't anymore a thing. Mandatory bunkers and scattered cornerstones are not mandatory anymore either, but still shelters must be provided by the public, mandatory long-lasting food supply are there etc Mined roads are far less mined than before, but still there. So I think Swiss STILL care it's defense. Also my point is about protecting against foreign invasions instead of build armies to invade other countries because that's the point of peace. If we want peace dialogue is mandatory and a good weapon aside help well, si vis pacem para bellum, BUT being MUCH more able to defend instead of offend is a good stability key.
xhevahir 4y ago
I think they're wrong about modern Switzerland, but they raise an issue that's crossed my mind occasionally: that Athenian democracy followed the emergence of the phalanx, a technology that favored the use of large, non-specialized citizen armies, and that our current military technology is the polar opposite of that.
- Gollapalli 4y ago
  It's the opposite. Phalanxes are the kind of thing where a break in coordination by any one man results you all getting rekt. The conflict between the Greeks and the Persians is a pretty good example of what happens when you have specialized men against a much larger force of levied up men of dubious quality. The Greeks won.
  - xhevahir 4y ago
    I probably shouldn't have used the word "non-specialized." I mean that in comparison with the armies of early Iron Age Greece the hoplite army of democratic Athens was relatively non-hierarchical, without such heavy dependence on a class of professional, full-time soldiers. (The author of this article compares that earlier type of combat to the sort of battle waged by indigenous New Guineans: https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/greek-warfare-homer/ https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/greek-warfare-... ).
anilakar 4y ago
> most modern countries stopped conscription is because infantrymen are far less useful than they used to be in combats The fallacy here is that conscripts == infantry, when frontline troops account for a minority of the whole force. Sweden had to overturn their decision to abolish conscription in less than a decade.
wnkrshm 4y ago
Less than two years ago, the Swiss air force, which is there for intercepting air space incursions had business hours [0]. [0] https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/26815-no-more-office-hours-for-swiss-air-policing-missions https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/26815-no-more-office-hour...

rob74 4y ago

...or it could be a recipe for civil war if those trained and armed people split into different factions. I don't see that happening in Switzerland, but that's probably one of the reasons why this model hasn't caught on a lot.

mantas 4y ago
If people do split into factions, they have to settle somehow. Of course, hopefully peacefully. Forcing society to stay coherent against it's will sounds a we... authoritarian?
kkfx 4y ago
Swiss is actually deeply split: German-speaking think they are the best, they have to rule, their Calvinist vision is the best etc, French-speaking populations they are the best, their social and democratic model is far superior to the raw and sore German-speaking Calvinist one, Italian-speaking populations think they are the best, a bridge between French and German groups, French-speaking ones are just hippie with too much power and richness, German-speaking are unable to enjoy life etc, Ladin/Romance populations think they are the sole real Swiss and the others oppress them just because they are numerically superior etc BUT they know being unite is needed and they choose carefully to distribute power around groups to make hard one being able to rule others or some unite against others and they choose a language no-one use (Latin) as a good symbol of "we are unite, but we are all different and together"... IMVHO this model is not accepted by most countries is because anyone like or dream power and in this model there is no absolute power by anyone so any decision need to be discussed and lobby can't do that much. Oh, it's not perfect, we see recent schizophrenic referendums rows, sure Swiss is not poor anymore, the poorest mercenaries of big European powers of the past, so they can count on being a safe harbor for anyone else etc. BUT try to compare Swiss to Lebanon (the ex-Middle-est Swiss almost anybody forgot)...
- dotancohen 4y ago
  As you described Switzerland I immediately thought of Lebanon. Lebanon has the added complication of extraordinary interest of its two neighbors in Lebanon's internal affairs. In your opinion, could that be the difference between the successful Swiss implementation and the largely failing Lebanese implementation?

Claude_Shannon 4y ago

Popular conscription is nothing else but slavery. And sexist one, most of the time.

Gollapalli 4y ago
Any society without conscription is a society of human livestock, because they are defended by men not their compatriots, but their shepherds.

seneca 4y ago

Giving the state a monopoly on weapons manufacturing seems like a road to serfdom, exactly the opposite of maintaining a Democracy. One of the critical steps to every dictatorship is disarming the population.

aerostable_slug 4y ago

Someone will always go to war outside of their borders. This model works if you've got Team America: World Police keeping sea lanes of communication open and other things that require power projection. If Team America isn't doing it, someone else will step in. Like China.