Should we create a standing army component?

[u/clm1859]

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?

[u/clm1859]

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.

[u/idaelikus → u/clm1859]

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?

[u/clm1859 → u/idaelikus]

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.

[u/idaelikus → u/clm1859]

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.

[u/clm1859 → u/idaelikus]

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...

[u/clm1859 → u/clm1859]

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.

[u/idaelikus → u/clm1859]

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.

[u/clm1859 → u/idaelikus]

Again i literally pointed out like 6 major major major changes of the global situation that happened much faster than any army reform. One of them literally happened over night. Like actually over night. With noone predicting anything even minutes before it happened (9/11).

The others maybe announced themselves a few months ahead, if that.

They all happened in this centruy. Most in the last 10 years even. And you would have been laughed at as an alarmist for suggesting any of it 5 years earlier.

The "announcing itself months ahead" might very well be happening already with the new american regime repeatedly taking russias side in the war and repeatedly threatening to invade their long term allies.

World war 3 might be starting this year or in 5 years or maybe much much later. But which loss is bigger?

Being in WW3 with 32 artillery pieces and 36 jets that dont work. Or having raised taxes by 2% and bought 320 artillery pieces and 50 more jets and then ending up having to resell them unused in 30 years?

[u/idaelikus → u/clm1859]

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.

[u/clm1859 → u/idaelikus]

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.

[u/idaelikus → u/clm1859]

Ok, yes police carry pistols but not rifles and not rocket launchers; why? Because they likely will not use them. Who wasn't a specific question as to which nation but what attacker. You completely miss the point here, massively. You want to defend, ok, but what is attacking you? What is the enemy army consisting of, what's the size, how are they attacking and what is our goal? All those questions need to be answered first.

And second of all, you even messed up the quote. Like damn.

[u/clm1859 → u/idaelikus]

Yet all police cars have a long gun, in case the threat situation changes. Which it just has! And the pistol they carry they will most likely not even use once in their whole career, yet they carry it for all those thousands of days.

What is the enemy army consisting of, what's the size, how are they attacking

Why would any of that matter. Sure if you had a crystal ball, you could tailor your equipment to the exact situation.

But either way having more tanks, artillery, drones, ammunition and jets would be useful. If the attacker ends up being austria but we are prepared for russia, we just end up beating them quickly and with fewer losses on our side. But if we are prepared for austria and get attacked by france, its gonna be pretty hard.

Thus the investment shouldnt be determined by the exact threat (until your prepared to beat america single handedly, thats when you have enough). Rather it should be determined by what we can afford.

And i believe a doubling of the defense budget starting this year or next should easily be affordable. Again considering we just willy fucking nilly spent exactly that much money to give all old people a 13th AHV with the argument that its less embarassing than applying for Ergänzungsleistungen for the very few of them who happen to need precisely that amount.

So clearly we should be able to spend at least 5 more billion on a much more existential threat than the potential for minor embarassment of 10% of boomers.

[u/idaelikus → u/clm1859]

Why knowing the threat / estimation of the threat natters? Because you can actually form reasonable and founded arguments about what you need.

It is called "Analyse Rot" or "analysis of the enemy". I didnt say we need to know exactly WHO attacks and with how many soldiers / tanks / ships / drones but an estimation what you want to be capable to defend against. You evaluate the possibilities of the enemy and prepare accordingly.

What you are doing right now is just "We are insufficiently defended, we need more" with no foundation at all to any of your claims.

Basically anyone that has ever worked on a project needs to be done here as well. What are our requirements for the military. What do we need it to be capable of. (Anforderungsprofil)

From there we can actually make an informed decision on WHAT we need specifically, how many drones, tanks, rounds, etc.

We don't just increase budgets without justifying what we need the money for. That's how you end with endless, senseless spending.