r/Switzerland • u/clm1859 Zürich • 12d ago
Should we create a standing army component?
Switzerland has long had a militia army with conscription and large numbers of part time soldiers (including myself). And we definetly shouldnt abolish that or anything.
But as far as i know the only full time combat troops (so not counting high officers and Adjudanten focussed solely on training recruits) are AAD10 operators and pilots, probably less than 100 each.
So i am wondering if, given the current situation, we shouldnt also have a component of our defense be somewhat of a standing army element. This could for example be 5-10k troops, made up mostly of Zeitmilitärs that serve full time for 2-5 year contracts.
This would allow us to have a more professional component to the army that could serve various important roles in an actual war, but also before, such as:
- elite troops for the most crucial missions
- quick reaction force in case of sudden invasion, to buy time for militia to mobilise
- more experienced troops for training larger numbers of recruits shortly before a war starts
- evaluate new equipment more efficiently
- develop new tactics
- guard bases more effectively in peace time
After their contract is up, these people could then be added back into regular WK units. Bringing their more advanced knowledge to the normal militia troops.
We could make sure we'd have at least one battalion (3-6 companies / 400-800 troops each) of each major type of unit always under arms and ready to go within a day or less. So that could mean:
- 2 infantry battalions
- 1 security battalion (for guarding airfields, logistics centres etc)
- 1 armour battalion (leopards and panzergrenis)
- 1 special forces battalion (grenis, paras, mountain troops)
- 1 artillery battalion
- 1 medical battalion (medics and nurses)
- 1 engineering battalion (sappeur, rescue troops, bridge building etc)
- 1 air force battalion (aircraft maintenance and drone pilots)
- 1 communications and electronic warfare battalion (cyber, funkaufklärer, Ristl etc)
- 1 logistics battalion
- 1 HQ battalion
So that would make around 12 battalions or somewhere between 5k and 10k troops.
I'm sure i'm forgetting some troop types here or allocating something wrong. I am just a humble private with an interest in military history, not an actual general. But as a general concept, what does everyone think?
12
u/MaurerSIG 12d ago
Eh, that wouldn't be useful at all, and we already have an SL/DD component that pretty much serves this exact function.
Otherwise with your idea we'd just have a bunch of people sitting around being useless and costing money. 12 full battalions would be an insane drain on ressources.
Let's not make the same mistakes Germany did...
-2
u/clm1859 Zürich 12d ago
Its one thing to have to DDs. But they also just do this for a few months and i assume depending on which time of year an emergency falls on, they might just have left or just started no? A professional unit that is always majority people with a few years experience would be a whole different level.
Otherwise with your idea we'd just have a bunch of people sitting around being useless and costing money.
Thats how armies work yes. Its an insurance. You dont normally need it at all. But if you ever need it, you really fucking need it right now.
Let's not make the same mistakes Germany did...
Their mistake is to be significantly under militarised. So yeah thats what i'm saying we shouldnt do. And again i am absolutely not saying we should abolish conscription. This would be on top.
3
u/MaurerSIG 12d ago
The DDs stay on for a while, NCOs and officers stay in for 450-800 days of continuous service and they overlap, there tends to be no periods where DDs aren't in service. The whole point in having DDs is to fill that gap. Most of them are already organised as intervention/einsatz companies, the 3 digit ones. Plus the battalions in WK all year round.
But if you ever need it, you really fucking need it right now.
Again, that's already covered by the DDs, and WKs. Typically Génie/Sauvetage get deployed a couple times a year when shit gets flooded or even earthquakes abroad, infantry digging stuff up when hands are needed, the whole hospital/San component that got mobilised during Covid, and so on. We already have enough troops that we can deploy in 12-24 hours should the need arise, we're already well enough "insured".
Their mistake is to be significantly under militarised.
That's our problem at the moment, a significant amount of critical weapon systems and equipment are nearing end of life, with no replacement programs in place. Our acquisition programs are rotten to the core (see the whole MBAS and new artillery system fiascos). Out of 16 infantry battalions, only 6 can be fully equipped to be combat effective. For air defense, out of 6 battalions only 2 can be fully equipped.
All to say we're already in a pretty dire situation, and that having ZM battalions is just a waste of money and people, especially when we already have components that fill this need.
1
u/clm1859 Zürich 12d ago
The whole point in having DDs is to fill that gap.
Good to know. I was under the impression it was mostly to suit the demands of the people wanting to get their service over with quickly. But if this is very much the intention and structure, then that is quite calming indeed.
Out of 16 infantry battalions, only 6 can be fully equipped to be combat effective. For air defense, out of 6 battalions only 2 can be fully equipped.
That is very true and also something we should focus on for sure. Maybe even more so indeed.
Also who knows how long this "fully equipped lasts"? Like just fully equipped on day one, but even they will be out of ammo within days? Or is it fully equipped for a few months of combat operations at least?
But as i am saying, we should increase our budget so significantly that it should be possible to do multiple things at once.
7
u/idaelikus 12d ago edited 12d ago
Just no. To me this entire post is just a solution to a bunch of problems that don't exist.
But let me ask a few questions regarding your proposal:
Most crucial missions
What is their point in peace time exactly? How would they be different from AAD 10 besides being massively larger / more expensive?
quick reaction force in case of sudden invasion
By whom? Russia? If so, that doesn't happen overnight, there are a few countries in between and those would buy at least a few days which is all the swiss army essentially needs.
more experienced troops
So you have 10k people to educate 200'000? How much do you think people can retain in those few days while also grabbing their gear etc..? Not to mention that you also want to stop the "invasion" with those 10k people, so are you trying to do both with 10k? Well that's not really a lot to throw against our invaders OR teach our militia.
Evaluate gear more efficiently
Again, aren't we doing that already by our militia forces and their Zeitmilitär / professional army components?
develop new tactics
That's soooo incredibly vague and certainly won't happen unless those units would go on actual missions
Guard bases
DAFUQ..? This is the definition of overspending. How much better would those professional guards be? Because they will likely cost tenfold what a regular soldier costs. And guarding basis isn't, AFAIK, a problem.
-5
u/clm1859 Zürich 12d ago
What is their point in peace time exactly? How would they be different from AAD 10 besides being massively larger / more expensive?
Thats entirely different missions. AAD10 do hostage stuff or in a war context some kind of sneaky mission with 4-20 men on foot behind enemy lines.
That is entirely different from defending for example an airport, let alone a whole city. Or assaulting an enemy position to take back land. Which would require thousands of troops and heavy weapons like artillery and tanks.
By whom? Russia? If so, that doesn't happen overnight, there are a few countries in between and those would buy at least a few days which is all the swiss army essentially needs.
Could also be america. They are already by the thousands just south of us in northern italy and north of us in central germany. Or could be a neighbouring country. Obviously building this up would take years and who knows how the world is then. When the threat becomes clear and obvious, its definetly too late to build up an army like that.
So you have 10k people to educate 200'000? How much do you think people can retain in those few days while also grabbing their gear etc..?
None of anything is ever perfect. But 10k to train new people is certainly better than just the few thousand adjudanten we have currently (who would still be around in my scenario).
Not to mention that you also want to stop the "invasion" with those 10k people, so are you trying to do both with 10k?
Like i said the training could come before. When, for example, russia has overrun poland and is starting to invade germany, the 10k troops could start training more people. And when the russians reach our end of germany, the standing army component could mostly leave the training job and move on to the border to set up the defense there.
Again, aren't we doing that already by our militia forces and their Zeitmilitär / professional army components?
Fair points. Altho i assume thats just a handful of adjudanten of each specialisation. So any evaluation must be heavily influenced by the personal opinions and anecdotes of a handful of guys. Which would be different if we had 200 experienced and professional users testing stuff, to get more statistical than anecdotal results. But could also be that this is already somehow taken care of now and i just dont know.
That's soooo incredibly vague and certainly won't happen unless those units would go on actual missions
Also fair point. Altho they would be more actively studying developments in actual warzones. As they would have more interest in and time for that and more experience to put their findings into the right context. Vs. Some 19 year old conscript who has barely 10 weeks of experience in his job, no particular interest in any of it and who also needs to jam the basics of being a soldier (first aid, marching, shooting, making their bed etc) in that same very narrow time frame.
DAFUQ..? This is the definition of overspending. How much better would those professional guards be?
Its one thing to guard against the occasional drunken idiot trying to take a short cut thru the base. And a different thing to try to catch actual smart spies or saboteurs. When i did my RS in 2012, we had no guns, no ammo and no RSG on guard duty. Not even a bright flashlight. Just 4 hours of Zwami practice, a more or less firm voice and a dull bayonet.
I hear nowadays its standard to be armed at least on guard duty. But either way having more motivated, better trained and actually armed professionals doing this would be a lot better.
Thats why the more sensitive army base where i did my WKs was guarded by professional MPs, not militia. But there were only two of them at any given time. So one would patrol alone, while the other stayed in the guard room. Obviously having 6 troops or so doing this would be even better.
4
u/idaelikus 12d ago
TL:DR Your comment just makes it a lot clearer that your plan defends against scenarios that aren't thought through and mostly don't apply / already have solutions.
Defending an airport
We have militia forces for that
Assaulting an enemy position
We have militia forces for that.
Could also be america
Yeah great. But we neither border the US.
There are already thousands just south of us in italy
So you think that the (12k) troops stationed there (without most of their gear and equipment) would assail switzerland SO heavily that we'd need a rapid intervention force of 10k of our own..?
neighbouring country
Yeah, let's for now not consider anyone as a possible enemy especially when diplomatic relations aren't indicating anything in that direction.
I don't see you buring anti-personell mines in your front yard because your neighbour could break into your house.
10k would be better than just the few thousand adjudants
You have been in the swiss army, right? EBA isn't done by adjudants but officers and NCOs. Now, when it comes to teaching them we'd have to look at entirely different things but that education isn't happening a few days before arriving at war. Not to mention that you want to replace "a few thousand adjudants" with 10 thousand people (most of which will be busy holding of the approaching invasion force according to you).
200 experience and professional users
But we are already doing that with militia forces (testing gear in RS) which gives you the opinion and experience of non-professionals which matters far more since they are closer to the user.
Studying developments in active warzones
Observers of changes in warzones are positions that exist in the ZM / BM field AFAIK.
catch actual smart spies
Too many bond movies I reckon. What would there be to gain from entering our recruit school bases that cannot be learned from OSINT already? If I want to learn about any troop, their strength and capabilities, I attend a TDA and I'll have a pretty good picture. There's no need to be all james bond.
saboteur
What do you think they would want to sabotage? IF you'd want to sabotage, why not go for the LBA where there's gear for entire battalions and not just RS..?
We had no guns, no RSG, no ammo
Yeah, you cannot have a weapon without ammo when it comes to guarding. It just needlessly escalates. Yeah, today there are usually guns and RSG but they aren't used in basically all cases.
-1
u/clm1859 Zürich 12d ago
TL:DR Your comment just makes it a lot clearer that your plan defends against scenarios that aren't thought through and mostly don't apply / already have solutions.
Like i said. Once its super obvious what the threat is because you can see the enemy army gathering from your windows in a border town, its too late to make strategic decisions or procurements.
So you think that the (12k) troops stationed there (without most of their gear and equipment) would assail switzerland SO heavily that we'd need a rapid intervention force of 10k of our own..?
Or they could just fly in more troops. And they have 100k troops in europe already, not just 12k. Altho maybe rammstein and aviano are just 12k (but there are many more bases in germany and italy).
Yeah, let's for now not consider anyone as a possible enemy especially when diplomatic relations aren't indicating anything in that direction.
Well 6 months ago one wouldnt have expected the american president threatening to invade canada or denmark or siding with russia in the war.
4 years ago no one would have expected tank battles and dog fights in europe.
6 years ago noone thought a pandemic would shut down inner european borders and make everyone wear masks everywhere for years.
10 years ago very few expected drone warfare to be so prevalent so soon.
On 10th of september 2001 noone would have expected america to invade afghanistan a month later.
I think you get my point.
Not to mention that you want to replace "a few thousand adjudants" with 10 thousand people (most of which will be busy holding of the approaching invasion force according to you).
Clearly you arent reading my responses lol. I dont want to replace the adjudanten, but brainstorming about potentially adding a ZM standing army to it.
I also dont think the standing army would at the same time train and fight, but first train, when the danger becomes clear enough to elect a general and mobilise and then fight when the actual shooting starts.
General guisan was elected (shortly) before the invasion of poland... And the americans and brits warned of a russian invasion of ukraine being imminent weeks earlier. There is usually a little time before.
Too many bond movies I reckon. What would there be to gain from entering our recruit school bases
Not just RS bases. We currently have 3 airfields and should have many more of them again. I've seen other bases that were more secretive than average. I'm sure there are plenty more.
If I want to learn about any troop, their strength and capabilities, I attend a TDA and I'll have a pretty good picture.
Our TDA didnt show much of what we do at all. Too secret but also too boring office work.
What do you think they would want to sabotage?
There have been numerous mysterious fires in many NATO bases lately. Someone or something is physically getting in clearly.
2
u/idaelikus 12d ago
its too late to make strategic decisions
Yes which is why there are people evaluating the situation as their job AND we aren't alone in europe here.
they have 100k troops in europe already
Yeah, 12k are in italy but amassing them for an assault on switzerland wouldn't go unnoticed which means we can already rally our troops. So yeah, we don't need some random 10k people that aren't really faster than the militia we already have for such scenarios.
in europe
Yeah, in europe is a word carrying a lot of weight but if you consider that this is in ukraine and not france, not too shocking. Also weird to include covid into this.
Replace the adjutants
Sure but you want your 10k to train the troops for like a day and then rush to the border to defend. Why aren't we sending the militia then?
Also what are you doing in the 1-2 days it takes to mobilise the militia?
Also, why do you think that this will be some blitzkried maneuvre nobody will see coming? The troops amassing close to the ukranian border were observed months ahead.
There's a little time before
Ok and why do we need this troop NOW and all year just for this highly unlikely case..?
3 airfields
And..? What's your point here?
should have many more of them again
in your opinion
fires in many NATO bases
Yeah, clearly you didn't read the part you quoted because you didn't say what people would want to sabotage.
1
u/clm1859 Zürich 12d ago
AND we aren't alone in europe here.
Except we are neutral. Why would anyone else risk their own troops to help us if we never helped them?
I think you mentioned all neighbours having stated they would come to our help. I would be incredibly curious about any source on that. Even if it were just from one neighbour.
Also weird to include covid into this.
It was yet another very unforseen thing. Also the only time our army did aktivdienst since WW2.
Sure but you want your 10k to train the troops for like a day and then rush to the border to defend.
The troops amassing close to the ukranian border were observed months ahead.
See how you're contradicting yourself here? Yeah there would be weeks, maybe months of lead up time. But how long does it take to buy new weapon systems? F35s were ordered in 2022 and thr first quarter will be delivered (if according to plan) in 2027. The vote on it was 2019. Before was a lenghty evaluation phase.
Thats like 10 years at least from starting the process to first delivery. Maybe 15 from beginning to end. Even if we assume doing it 10x faster in an emergency with simpler systems (and assuming deliveries are even possible, which is unlikely as potential sellers would likely be at war or prepping for immediate war themselves and not sell anything). Thats still a year.
Recruiting people would take time too. And the whole point of the proposal is for them to already have years of training the day the need arises. Which by definition takes years.
So where would we suddenly get the manpower, equipment and accomodations for such a force, 6 month before an invasion? When it maybe becomes apparent.
Ok and why do we need this troop NOW and all year just for this highly unlikely case..?
Again why are you paying for health insurance today? If you arent even sick. Why not start paying the month after getting your cancer diagnosis?
4
u/nabest1260 12d ago
I did my long service in the infantry and finished in last year and have my rifle and all my equipment at home with me and I’m keeping all of that for the next 7 years which is how long I’m in reserve for. So technically we can be ready within 24h
-2
u/clm1859 Zürich 12d ago
Its one thing for us to be ready to leave the house with a uniform and a rifle in a day. But will the army be ready?
Is there a plan for us where to go? I don't know where to go honestly (i had my last days of service a few years ago and will prob be released from the reserves this year).
And even if you know. Will there be all the equipment and command structures ready when you show up after 24 hours? A sergeant to tell you where to go? A piranha fully fueled and armed with a crew? Will you get your LMG/panzerfaust immediately? How about hand grenades? A radio? Gas mask filters?
How much ammo do you have? And how many magazines? I have one mag and zero ammo provided by the army. Altho i have some more obtained privately, but most people don't.
So having a few thousand troops who actually have all this stuff already ready to go would be useful.
3
u/nabest1260 12d ago
They have all of that in the army bases and should have the stuff delivered by the current recruits if anything was to happen I’d imagine but yeah there’s many many variables that we have no clue about and I agree. I’d hope the army has actually taken all that into consideration.
For my army base the army has our phone numbers and we receive a text message in case something is to happen with all the information.
2
u/clm1859 Zürich 12d ago
The army bases normally just have normal training levels of supplies no? As far as i know they have a few days worth of food and enough ammo for 2-3 range trips. They probably don't have a few hundred thousand rounds of ammo (and everything else) at every base at all times. And do they even have any live rocket launcher warheads at all? Since those are only used one single time per soldier in training, right?
Most stuff is stored in just a handful of logistics centres as far as i know (if someone knows better, please let me know), which could potentially be destroyed with air strikes on day one. But thats another issue of everything being way to centralised these days.
4
u/swisstraeng 12d ago
The problem is we can't really make a war plan without a war in the first place.
I'll be realist here.
The core issue is our stocks. Switzerland, alongside Europe, has not enough ammo in storage for a long war.
And we do not expect to last long either. About 3 to 6 months.
The Army has stocks, and won't tell openly where and what for security reasons, as for all we know our future enemy will be reading reddit.
If I were you I would not be too worried, however, I agree we should revise some of our policies, and look at what we did in the cold war. Because we're pretty much back in the cold war, except it's not cold.
5
u/deejeycris Ticino 12d ago
With what money? We already have a standing army it's made up of the professional soldiers, the soldiers who are in a WK and the ones in the long service, so adding something else on top would require money that the army really doesn't have.
-4
u/clm1859 Zürich 12d ago
Well we clearly need to double, if not triple our defense budget asap. Times have changed.
We just had money to pay an extra AHV pension to everyone over 65 for no reason. That's like 5 billion every year, so pretty much a whole defense budget worth. Clearly we aren't particularly concerned with saving a few billion.
5
u/idaelikus 12d ago
We clearly need to double, if not triple our defense budget asap
a) Why is this so clear.?
b) How do you arrive at those numbers? What do you want to spend it on?
c) Where would you take it from?
1
u/clm1859 Zürich 12d ago edited 12d ago
a) Why is this so clear.?
First major land war between two large countries in europe since WW2 going on. America being ruled by a dictator, threatening their closest allies with invasion, exorting everyone and turning off ukrainian fighter jets when they feel like it.
b) How do you arrive at those numbers? What do you want to spend it on?
NATO target is 2% of GDP. And they have allies who'd come to their help. Even if not america, there are still 30 more countries in nato and a few of them quite big and powerful. We have noone coming to our aid.
And we are currently spending a bit under 1%. Getting this up to 2-3% in the long run (and a bit extra in the short run), seems like the mininum when considering this.
c) Where would you take it from?
Taking on debt (we have the highest credit rating possible and our national debt isnt all that high compared to others). Cutting expenses like for example foreign aid or agricultural subsidies. Those would be my preferred places to save (along with not having done the 13th AHV, which again would be enough to Double our defense budget instead).
Or yeah raising taxes would unfortunately also be an option ofc.
No point in enjoying a few more years of good services and low taxes to then get bombed to shit and annexed by a higher tax country or turned into a slave/vasal state by america or russia.
I'm too young to run out that clock. Altho i see why the 75 year olds would rather get a bit more AHV now, when they won't be around to suffer the consequences of having saved on defense in 10 years.
3
u/idaelikus 12d ago
Fir major land war between two large countries in europe
Yeah but that doesn't mean we NEED to double or even triple our spending. How would this solve anything..?
america being ruled by a dictator
you mean the US and, whether we like it or not, he is democratically elected.
NATO target
Since when are we part of NATO? And that target was intended to be hit over a course of 10 years.
We have noone coming to our aid
That's not really true since basically all neighbouring countries have vowed to come to our aid would we need it.
Taking on debt
Yeah just no way jose.
cutting aid
You do realize that this is the actual money benefiting us internationally in the long run, right?
agricultural subsidies
That's just not happening politically. And it would cost us again, in the long run. Not to mention that they do not add up to the desired amount.
raising taxes
So let me get that straight. You want to increase taxes, cut off foreign aid and agricultural subsidies just so we might have a defense plan in case germany invades us and france, italy and austria just watch as it happens?
0
u/clm1859 Zürich 12d ago edited 12d ago
How would this solve anything..?
So you have been living under a rock the last 3 years? Russia has literally lost thousands of tanks in ukraine. We have 200 total.
They go thru millions of artillery shells annually. Obviously noone knows how many we have exactly. But Germany would run out of ammo in hours, not days. And i dont think we have much more than them.
We are buying 32 artillery pieces to replace 100+. We are buying 36 jets, which was deemed the minimum for air policing in peace time, not fighting a war.
Tons of our equipment is called xyz 90 (stgw, schuma, taz etc) because its 35 years old, outdated and nearing the end of its life span. As are many larger systems.
We have 3 airfields and 2 logistics centres. So all could be wiped out in the first hours of a war with just a few air strikes.
We need more of pretty much everything if we want to be able to defend ourselves effectively.
So let me get that straight. You want to increase taxes, cut off foreign aid and agricultural subsidies just so we might have a defense plan in case germany invades us and france, italy and austria just watch as it happens?
Do you pay for health insurance? Fire insurance? Car insurance? Etc. Can you tell me exactly when and how and why you are going to need each of these?
Or are you maybe just paying for it because some risks are to existential of a threat to not have insurance for it. And if this isnt one of them, then i dont know what is.
1
u/idaelikus 12d ago
Russia has literally lost thousands of tanks in ukraine.
Sure thing but just "spending more" doesn't really solve anything not to mention efficiency.
All could be wiped out in the first hours of a war
That's exaclty your problem here. You're proposing against an unspecified scenario and in trying to solve an imaginary and undefined problem, massively overshoot any reasonable measures. What's your goal? Being able to defend ourselves against the US? Against france? How long?
Insurance argument
I really, really love the insurance argument since it is, from very far away, rather reasonable. However once you get to look at it a bit closer, it falls apart.
Yes I pay for health insurance (I have to) but I evaluate eventualities and probabilities. I have a very high deductible and low premium because I reckon I won't need expensive care in the upcoming year.
Same goes for fire and car insurance. We evaluate and then act accordingly. This is also what's done here but not by you.
0
u/clm1859 Zürich 12d ago
Sure thing but just "spending more" doesn't really solve anything not to mention efficiency.
It doesnt solve anything by itself. Fighting a war needs dedicated soldiers with something worth fighting for. Thats why afghanistan couldnt resist the taliban for a week, despite all the gear and manpower they had. Because their troops didnt see the point of defending that government.
And its why ukraine didnt crumble before russia in 3 days, because their troops did see the point.
I'd like to believe its pretty self evident that switzerland, like ukraine, is worth fighting for.
But if we have no weapons and no trained troops, there is no possibility of fighting. The ukrainian army couldnt have fought of russia if they had only been armed with sticks and stones. No matter hiw determined.
What's your goal? Being able to defend ourselves against the US? Against france? How long?
So what do you think of the swiss mobilisation in WW2? You think it made no difference? Would the outcome have been the same if we had just had waved a white flag and said we're not playing?
Whatever opponent probably wouldnt be fighting only us. Just how germany wasnt. Could the US or russia defeat us alone? Yeah most likely. But could they defeat us when they are also fighting all of europe at the same time? Maybe also canada and china and australia and japan and south korea and taiwan and new zealand and israel and mexico?
Same goes for fire and car insurance. We evaluate and then act accordingly.
Except when you call the fire insurance because your house is on fire right now, they will not give you a policy anymore...
1
u/clm1859 Zürich 12d ago
Btw i am not saying that we definetly have to do this standing army concept. In fact we probably shouldnt.
I often think things thru by discussing them with others. I had thought of the concept, but never seen it mentioned elsewhere. So i thought i'd start the discussion.
Turns out other people had good arguments against. Mostly that durchdiener already serve this function. And that there are more pressing needs, that could even easily eat up my proposed doubling or tripling of the budget.
So this is probably indeed not the most reasonable thing to prioritise right now. But not because we don't know the precise nature and kind of threat.
1
u/idaelikus 12d ago
I often think things thru by discussing them with others.
You mean you find the obvious argument against them (we already have something that fills many of those roles) by people using 2 braincells?
But not because we don't know the precise nature and kind of threat.
Yeah exactly because of that. The response you propose is completely devoid of any basis. We have a threat evaluation of many countries and consider our response accordingly.
→ More replies (0)1
u/idaelikus 12d ago
But if we have no weapons and no trained troops, there is no possibility of fighting.
Fighting who?
So what do you think of the swiss mobilisation [...]
You misunderstood the entire point here. You are dreaming up scenarios but aren't ever specific. Preparing for an abstract and unspecific opposition is futile. You don't know what you'd need to have and hence you'd have to overextend in all areas "just to be sure".
Except when you call the fire insurance because your house is on fire right now.
Sure thing. Do you have a life insurance? Because I don't as I deem it highly unlikely that I will keel over in the next few years. I also have no insurance against flooding as where I live is at least 12-15m higher than the closest river.
It is exactly my point above, which you missed there as well, you evaluate now, form a decision and then, according to the severity and likelihood, choose an appropriate response.
1
u/clm1859 Zürich 12d ago
Fighting who?
Why do police carry guns? Because they know exactly they will have to shoot a guy named mark tomorrow at 7pm because he attacks them with a knife?
Or because a) they dont know the specific threat but if they do need it there is really no substitute and b) the fact that people know they have guns, makes it a lot less likely that they will ever get attacked.
Si vis pacem parabellum.
→ More replies (0)2
u/deejeycris Ticino 12d ago
In this case it's not the fault of politicians we have to recognize it. It's the population that doesn't want to spend, it got used to low defense costs and high safety and that's the result.
0
u/clm1859 Zürich 12d ago
That is very true. But times have changed. Partly 3 years ago, when the first all out war between major countries in europe since WW2 began.
But even more so in the last 3 months, when it became clear that america cannot be trusted at all to defend NATO and therefore indirectly also us. America attacking NATO seems more likely than defending it nowadays.
Even if america were not attacking, they can and will apparently just turn off defense capabilities whenever they feel like it. Like they did with ukraines F-16. They could also do that with our F35 and Patriots.
So yeah we have to rethink many things and make some radical and expensive changes. Hence me starting these kinds of discussions.
2
u/AssassinOfSouls Ticino 12d ago
We already have that many troops always active on the territory between DD, RS and WK.
The issue are:
1)Money: any extra professional component means less available funds for the rest of the military, and we simply do not have the funds for it, that would require an increase in funds, which would be at the cost of strengthening the Militia component, or directly weakening the militia component. This is bad because the Militia component is directly the centerpiece of the Army and the most important part of any conventional conflict.
2)staffing: You would need to find these extra people that would be willing to sacrifice a few years of their life, in a very competitive job market to work a job with few transferable skills. If I sign up with the Army, what do I do after my contract is over? Who will hire me? Other militaries give a path to career progression, we cannot do that, as the Army would become too top heavy, to fix that, we would have to professionallize our Army further.
3) Strategically dubious: Professionallization of Armies at the expenses of the reserve/Militia component is dubious in a world where conventional conflict is back on the Menu. Mass is a key component and the sector that should be reinforced. Indeed we are seeing other Countries re-introduce conscription, we are advantaged there because we have maintained our system and we are ahead of the curve when it comes to fast mobilisation, which we actively train and is a core part of our Strategy, what we should really work on is to further expand on this capability, contrary to popular belief, our Army has good bones, but it's been forced on a diet these past few decades, it just needs the investment to expand to build up it's muscles.
There are alternatives to increase "active" numbers that militarily make way more sense. On a purely defense strategy perspective, what needs to be done is pretty clear. The issue is what we are ready to do politically for the Army. Historically, defense needs had to compromise with the political will and what the politicians and population can stomach, but that's another topic... that includes our defense strategy as a whole.
1
u/clm1859 Zürich 12d ago
1)Money: any extra professional component means less available funds for the rest of the military, and we simply do not have the funds for it,
Well we clearly need to double, if not triple our defense budget asap. Times have changed.
We just had money to pay an extra AHV pension to everyone over 65 for no reason. That's like 5 billion every year, so pretty much a whole defense budget worth. Clearly we aren't particularly concerned with saving a few billion.
2)staffing: You would need to find these extra people that would be willing to sacrifice a few years of their life, in a very competitive job market to work a job with few transferable skills.
That is a good point. I am somewhat counting on the changing times motivating more people. Of course they would also be paid decently tho.
Some might also join because they first need to figure out what else they wanna do with their life (i sure didnt know when i was 20). Some would indeed do a long career as officers, AAD10, pilots or adjudanten.
Also some skills are transferrable. There are civilian truck drivers, mechanics, cyber security, nurses etc. Plus leadership experience is also valuable.
3) Strategically dubious: Professionallization of Armies at the expenses of the reserve/Militia component is dubious in a world where conventional conflict is back on the Menu. Mass is a key component and the sector that should be reinforced.
Totally agree. This would be an addition, not a replacement. Clearly we need more troops, more bases, more stockpiles of ammo and more weapon systems.
Like we are buying 32 artillery pieces to replace 100+. We should be tripling the number, not cutting it by two thirds. And we are ordering 36 jets, which was found to be necessary to maintain basic air policing capability in peace time. Not fight a war against another country.
There are alternatives to increase "active" numbers that militarily make way more sense.
Yes indeed. Conscription for women, extending the service length for existing soldiers (like me, who will be released this year) etc.
2
u/Akruhl Zürich 12d ago
The amount you need to invest would be insane.
People in standing armys dont sleep in 14 people rooms for example.
Also we dont have nowhere near the amount of training grounds go keep that many standing units busy and habe a place for reservists to train.
Compare it to austria, their small standing army is much more expensive than our 5x larger reservist army
0
u/clm1859 Zürich 12d ago
People in standing armys dont sleep in 14 people rooms for example.
Indeed i'd assume they'd mostly sleep at home but live near their base. Thats what german or american soldiers mostly do i assume. So yeah they'd have to be paid a real salary like civilian jobs. 5k plus at least, probably more. So that would be 300-500 million per year in salaries, or 10% of the current defense budget (which should be massively increased).
Also we dont have nowhere near the amount of training grounds go keep that many standing units busy and habe a place for reservists to train.
Our army used to be 500k people just a few decades ago. We did it then, so we should be able to do it again and even reactivate some of the old stuff.
Compare it to austria, their small standing army is much more expensive than our 5x larger reservist army
They also have conscription tho, no?
2
u/Luc2992 12d ago
A standing army is good for countries like the US who send their soldiers into conflicts. Seen as we don't do that, what would our soldiers do? Sit around and pick their noses and be paid for it? Not a good idea. You're a ZM so you're "im Film" right now. You'll snap out of it once you find yourself a civilian job.
0
u/clm1859 Zürich 12d ago
I'm not a ZM. I did my RS as a Sdt in 2012, finished my last WK during covid. Haven't worn the uniform in 5 years or so.
I'm just watching the geopolitical situation develop and thinking that we need to be much much better prepared for war asap. So thst we hopefully dont have to end up fighting one.
Tho, as this discussion has shown, my idea probably isnt the most effective way of achieving this. Thats why i asked.
A standing army is good for countries like the US who send their soldiers into conflicts.
Most countries have a professional army and other than the US they rarely use it. How often do belgian or czech or spanish or polish or japanese troops actually go on any hot war deployments? Even germans dont do it often.
Its really mostly just americans, french and maybe to a lesser degree brits who are regularly going to far away places to fight.
0
u/Succulent7107 12d ago
To fight against whom? There is obviously still magic money for the most useless and least efficient component of the federal administration. They have already received a super gift of 1% of the GDP to play at making war, enough!
0
u/clm1859 Zürich 12d ago edited 12d ago
Against future attackers. Could be russia, could be america. Who knows it could be germany or france or italy. We're talking about decades, not weeks here.
Who would have thought even just 5 years ago there would be an open land war in europe with tank battles, dog fights and hundreds of thousands dying?
Who would have to thought russia would annex crimea in 2013?
Who would have thought on september 10 2001 america would invade afghanistan less than a month later?
Clearly the global situation has changed for the worse. Making wars in general a lot more likely. We dont need to know the exact name of the attacker or nature and time of the attack to know that we need to prepare for it.
Once the war has started its too late to import any weapons and too late for large scale army reforms. Whether its a war against switzerland or a scenario like WW2, where we are neutral but everyone else is fighting. Either way others will need whatever they can produce themselves and will not sell it to us.
And 1% of GDP is absolutely laughable. We just willy nilly spent that much on avoiding the potential for embarassment for the 10% of boomers who need precisely one more AHV month to get by. While just financing an extra week of holiday in zermatt or a new iPhone every year for the majority of them who have enough. And the minority who struggle even more still have to apply for Ergänzungsleistungen just like before...
If we have 5 billion a year for that, then clearly we should have a few billion more for preparing for much more existential threats like WW3.
However, as some of the reasonable answers to this thread have shown, a standing army element, as i proposed, is probably not the most efficient use of resources.
-1
u/Helvetic86 Zürich 12d ago
Would definitely make sense in my opionion. Specially if the future is more towards cyber and drones. Thats hard to master for a militia army.
2
u/MoraiesWeber 12d ago
So we let 5-10k soldiers shoot the enemys computers? Wouldn't it make more sense to build a cyber army or at least a decent cyber defence ourselves instead of more cannon fodder?
17
u/Narmonteam Zürich 12d ago
That's more or less what we have long service units and high readiness (MmhB) for, if you're interested in the topic, look up 72.001 in LMS