6 ms·

Complex systems, like the human body, are incredibly robust (failure rates of the death penalty in the US, for example, are surprisingly high), and incredibly f

Complex systems, like the human body, are incredibly robust (failure rates of the death penalty in the US, for example, are surprisingly high), and incredibly fragile (we've all heard stories about the person who slipped on the ice, hit their head and instantly died). We get used to the robust and we sometimes forget the fragile. When I lived in Switzerland I was surprised to find that every modern building has a nuclear bunker in the basement, and that even now they are kept up: supplies are rotated, there are inspections, etc. At first it seemed quaint, but then I realized that as arguably the richest country in the world, they're not as interested in getting richer as they are in preserving what they have -- thus different forms of insurance, including even bunkers. I now find that quite smart, actually.

jacques_chester 14y ago
Switzerland's bunker policy is the logical extension of that country's historically defensive posture. The Swiss have deliberately made it very, very difficult to perform a conventional invasion of their country; the geography makes it a natural fortress and they've studiously added to it. If conventional invasion is impossible, then the next option is weapons of mass destruction. Relatively cheap and effective. The Swiss have no WMD deterrent of their own, therefore they have to bet on survivability. Hence the bunkers. As a country they definitely take the very long view.
- LaGrange 14y ago
  It's also worth to notice the way Swiss survived WWII. They sat on critical supply routes, and organized guerilla before anyone could invade, giving them an incredibly strong bargaining position. Keeping bunkers actually works well with that. And they're not really wasted space — people use them as wine cellars, washing rooms or whatever else.
  - jacques_chester 14y ago
    Well the other thing the Swiss have cultivated is their neutrality. From the neutrality and the natural fortress flows their long history banking. Historically the Powers would not think of invading Switzerland, because ... where else in Europe can you safely house your fortune? If you even hinted at it, you wouldn't be welcome. Similarly, in wartime, everyone needs strictly neutral parties to get a lot of the humdrum business of war done. Through Swiss front companies the Nazis could obtain critical war supplies (vanadium, I think it was); similarly the allies could obtain critical intelligence through the availability of Switzerland as a staging post into Austria and Germany.
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      In the words of Max Petitpierre: "These credits and the deliveries of war material and other products [...] contributed to the war efforts of one of the belligerents. Not only had we abandonded integral neutrality, but - even worse - in so doing, we were as a rule deviating from the very notion of neutrality. "
      - jacques_chester 14y ago
        The problem with being truly neutral is that while you are a bastion against tyranny, you are also the refuge of scoundrels.
        jacquesm 14y ago
        It wasn't quite that simple. Very interesting but very long reading: http://www.uek.ch/en/schlussbericht/synthesis/ueke.pdf http://www.uek.ch/en/schlussbericht/synthesis/ueke.pdf Almost 600 pages but if you have a spare bit of time and really interested you could do a lot worse than looking at this, it is one of the most candid introspective pieces about world war II.
    - LaGrange 14y ago
      Of course, but Swiss were not the only country that declared neutrality. Netherlands did that both during World War 1 and 2. And both countries were strategically interesting. Thanks to both geography and effective deterrence Switzerland was able to enforce its neutrality, while Netherlands wasn't.
  - gadders 14y ago
    I don't think their neutrality would have lasted very long had Hitler finished off the UK and USSR. They also turned away plenty of Jewish refugees, as well as secreting gold stolen from concentration camp victims. Their record during WWII is shameful.
    - esrauch 14y ago
      The US also turned away plenty of Jewish refugees. US and the UK refused to let Black Free French soldiers take part in the freeing of Paris since they wanted it to be a "white victory". The US also put Japanese Americans in internment camps. Its ridiculous to single out the Swiss as shameful in WW2, looking at norms 70 years ago would make all people "shameful" in some way.
      - gadders 14y ago
        The turning away of refugees by the UK and USA is bad as well. However, in the credit column, they have that whole "Defeating Nazi Germany" thing, which Switzerland does not.
        esrauch 14y ago
        Except the US did not go to war against Nazi Germany to close the concentration camps, but for their own self interest. Every single nation acted in their self interest during WW2, and excluding the single outlier of the Holocaust, I haven't heard of any actions by any nation that were any more or less moral than that. Edit: My apologies, there were clearly plenty of other atrocities (eg Rape of Nanking if you consider that as part of WW2), but it is simply is not accurate to claim that Swiss were evil and the US were shining knights.
        Mz 14y ago
        It is a common Americanism to talk like we singlehandedly defeated the Nazis, as if no other nation really contributed. I've discussed it with a few foreign friends. I am not in any shape to discuss it intelligently at the moment. Just thought I would note that this egomaniacal hero complex is one of this nation's foibles.
- offmango 14y ago
  For anyone looking to learn more about Switzerland's robust and imaginative defense system, John McPhee's La Place de la Concorde Suisse is an absolutely fascinating read: http://amzn.com/0374519323 http://amzn.com/0374519323
davidtanner 14y ago
That's because the USA switched from effective execution methods like the firing squad and hanging to a method of dubious efficacy and humanity. Given the option, I think many people would opt for the tried and true methods instead of a pseudo-medical death chamber.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- da3da 14y ago
  I'm not really sure why this is being downvoted. At least with a firing squad the person dies nearly instantly. The anticipation may be slightly worse however.
  - Ntrails 14y ago
    I am entirely unclear on what is worse about being shot by 10 soldiers with rifles than being strapped to a chair, and having all the paraphernalia attached in order to have thousands of volts applied. The morality of the death penalty itself is a reasonable thing to argue over. The idea that some current implementations (chair, gas) are better than firing squad (or hanging/beheading for that matter) seems nuts. Of course, given the choice, I'd probably choose to go the same way as my dog went. Sleep.
    - LaGrange 14y ago
      Which is how in the US death penalty is executed. Even the pharmaceuticals use are, as far as I know, either the same or very similar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_thiopental http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_thiopental Of course, while this is a very humane way to execute an euthanasia (either of animal or a human), talking about the least inhumane way to carry out an execution is somewhat ridiculous. The most humane way is to just not do it. Also, it's totally off-topic.
    - baddox 14y ago
      > The idea that some current implementations (chair, gas) are better than firing squad (or hanging/beheading for that matter) seems nuts. As far as I can tell from my hasty research, all states in the USA claim lethal injection as their primary method (note: 17 states do not practice capital punishment). A few still have electrocution, firing squad, hanging, and gas chamber on the books, but they seem to be vestigial laws or "backups" in the event that lethal injection is deemed unconstitutional. That said, according to this site [0] there have been recent executions by firing squad (2010), electrocution (2010), hanging (1999), and gas chamber (1999).
Ras_ 14y ago
Finland has a similar policy. Since 1958 every building above 3000m2 was required to have a bomb/fallout shelter. Current spec extends to buildings with more than 1200m2 (used to be 600m2 until 2011, which was deemed too expensive) floor space. In 2008 there were 43 000 shelters for 3,6 million people (total population 5,3M). Shelter should be no more than 250 meters away.

jacques_chester 14y ago

Switzerland's bunker policy is the logical extension of that country's historically defensive posture. The Swiss have deliberately made it very, very difficult to perform a conventional invasion of their country; the geography makes it a natural fortress and they've studiously added to it. If conventional invasion is impossible, then the next option is weapons of mass destruction. Relatively cheap and effective. The Swiss have no WMD deterrent of their own, therefore they have to bet on survivability. Hence the bunkers. As a country they definitely take the very long view.

LaGrange 14y ago
It's also worth to notice the way Swiss survived WWII. They sat on critical supply routes, and organized guerilla before anyone could invade, giving them an incredibly strong bargaining position. Keeping bunkers actually works well with that. And they're not really wasted space — people use them as wine cellars, washing rooms or whatever else.
- jacques_chester 14y ago
  Well the other thing the Swiss have cultivated is their neutrality. From the neutrality and the natural fortress flows their long history banking. Historically the Powers would not think of invading Switzerland, because ... where else in Europe can you safely house your fortune? If you even hinted at it, you wouldn't be welcome. Similarly, in wartime, everyone needs strictly neutral parties to get a lot of the humdrum business of war done. Through Swiss front companies the Nazis could obtain critical war supplies (vanadium, I think it was); similarly the allies could obtain critical intelligence through the availability of Switzerland as a staging post into Austria and Germany.
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    In the words of Max Petitpierre: "These credits and the deliveries of war material and other products [...] contributed to the war efforts of one of the belligerents. Not only had we abandonded integral neutrality, but - even worse - in so doing, we were as a rule deviating from the very notion of neutrality. "
    - jacques_chester 14y ago
      The problem with being truly neutral is that while you are a bastion against tyranny, you are also the refuge of scoundrels.
      - jacquesm 14y ago
        It wasn't quite that simple. Very interesting but very long reading: http://www.uek.ch/en/schlussbericht/synthesis/ueke.pdf http://www.uek.ch/en/schlussbericht/synthesis/ueke.pdf Almost 600 pages but if you have a spare bit of time and really interested you could do a lot worse than looking at this, it is one of the most candid introspective pieces about world war II.
  - LaGrange 14y ago
    Of course, but Swiss were not the only country that declared neutrality. Netherlands did that both during World War 1 and 2. And both countries were strategically interesting. Thanks to both geography and effective deterrence Switzerland was able to enforce its neutrality, while Netherlands wasn't.
- gadders 14y ago
  I don't think their neutrality would have lasted very long had Hitler finished off the UK and USSR. They also turned away plenty of Jewish refugees, as well as secreting gold stolen from concentration camp victims. Their record during WWII is shameful.
  - esrauch 14y ago
    The US also turned away plenty of Jewish refugees. US and the UK refused to let Black Free French soldiers take part in the freeing of Paris since they wanted it to be a "white victory". The US also put Japanese Americans in internment camps. Its ridiculous to single out the Swiss as shameful in WW2, looking at norms 70 years ago would make all people "shameful" in some way.
    - gadders 14y ago
      The turning away of refugees by the UK and USA is bad as well. However, in the credit column, they have that whole "Defeating Nazi Germany" thing, which Switzerland does not.
      - esrauch 14y ago
        Except the US did not go to war against Nazi Germany to close the concentration camps, but for their own self interest. Every single nation acted in their self interest during WW2, and excluding the single outlier of the Holocaust, I haven't heard of any actions by any nation that were any more or less moral than that. Edit: My apologies, there were clearly plenty of other atrocities (eg Rape of Nanking if you consider that as part of WW2), but it is simply is not accurate to claim that Swiss were evil and the US were shining knights.
        Mz 14y ago
        It is a common Americanism to talk like we singlehandedly defeated the Nazis, as if no other nation really contributed. I've discussed it with a few foreign friends. I am not in any shape to discuss it intelligently at the moment. Just thought I would note that this egomaniacal hero complex is one of this nation's foibles.
offmango 14y ago
For anyone looking to learn more about Switzerland's robust and imaginative defense system, John McPhee's La Place de la Concorde Suisse is an absolutely fascinating read: http://amzn.com/0374519323 http://amzn.com/0374519323

davidtanner 14y ago

That's because the USA switched from effective execution methods like the firing squad and hanging to a method of dubious efficacy and humanity. Given the option, I think many people would opt for the tried and true methods instead of a pseudo-medical death chamber.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
da3da 14y ago
I'm not really sure why this is being downvoted. At least with a firing squad the person dies nearly instantly. The anticipation may be slightly worse however.
- Ntrails 14y ago
  I am entirely unclear on what is worse about being shot by 10 soldiers with rifles than being strapped to a chair, and having all the paraphernalia attached in order to have thousands of volts applied. The morality of the death penalty itself is a reasonable thing to argue over. The idea that some current implementations (chair, gas) are better than firing squad (or hanging/beheading for that matter) seems nuts. Of course, given the choice, I'd probably choose to go the same way as my dog went. Sleep.
  - LaGrange 14y ago
    Which is how in the US death penalty is executed. Even the pharmaceuticals use are, as far as I know, either the same or very similar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_thiopental http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_thiopental Of course, while this is a very humane way to execute an euthanasia (either of animal or a human), talking about the least inhumane way to carry out an execution is somewhat ridiculous. The most humane way is to just not do it. Also, it's totally off-topic.
  - baddox 14y ago
    > The idea that some current implementations (chair, gas) are better than firing squad (or hanging/beheading for that matter) seems nuts. As far as I can tell from my hasty research, all states in the USA claim lethal injection as their primary method (note: 17 states do not practice capital punishment). A few still have electrocution, firing squad, hanging, and gas chamber on the books, but they seem to be vestigial laws or "backups" in the event that lethal injection is deemed unconstitutional. That said, according to this site [0] there have been recent executions by firing squad (2010), electrocution (2010), hanging (1999), and gas chamber (1999).

Ras_ 14y ago

Finland has a similar policy. Since 1958 every building above 3000m2 was required to have a bomb/fallout shelter. Current spec extends to buildings with more than 1200m2 (used to be 600m2 until 2011, which was deemed too expensive) floor space. In 2008 there were 43 000 shelters for 3,6 million people (total population 5,3M). Shelter should be no more than 250 meters away.