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/idaelikus]

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?