Swedish defense is shutting down.

[Cybernoid]

But probably not to Sweden. That's right, there's absolutely no reason at all for any country in this world to invade Sweden.

Wow, you can predict the future? Can you tell me what will happen to me in five years?

 

[Sprafa]

Wow, you can predict the future? Can you tell me what will happen to me in five years?

You're too afraid of the future. Geopolitics don't change in a few days, if they do, the it's instability - WW3.

Geopolitics take a lot to change. When they start changing, you can have like 10 years before anyone even starts thinking of invading Sweden. In those 10 years you can rearm decently.

 

[NeLi]

To constantly live in fear and spend your nations resources on weapons, and then some more weapons, is just stupid.

I can understand why some countries in the world today have armies, I can not however, understand why we would need one.

Mine and other peoples suggestions about a national security force seems to be enough.

 

[Cybernoid]

You're too afraid of the future. Geopolitics don't change in a few days, if they do, the it's instability - WW3.

Geopolitics take a lot to change. When they start changing, you can have like 10 years before anyone even starts thinking of invading Sweden. In those 10 years you can rearm decently.

Assuming that you know someone is planning an invasion. And assuming that geopolitics is the only factor in the world, which it is not.

 

[Sprafa]

besides, Sweden does a lot to look neutral, you're not even on NATO.

 

[Sprafa]

Assuming that you know someone is planning an invasion. And assuming that geopolitics is the only factor in the world, which it is not.

If anyone just invades Sweden out of the blues, it's WW3. I've explaned that.

Geopolitics the way the World is lead. What do you mean other factors ? Factors make Geopolitics.

 

[Cybernoid]

What do you mean other factors?

Natural disasters, sudden terrorist attacks (with WMDs), regime changes (they can happen without warning), lack of resources (food, oil and such)...

 

[NeLi]

Natural disasters, sudden terrorist attacks (with WMDs), regime changes (they can happen without warning), lack of resources (food, oil and such)...

1: Natural disasters? What exactly do you mean? We have the national task force for that.

2: Terrorist attacks? And you somehow think the army can stop them? Look at the US. the biggest military power in the world. They couldn't stop the attacks on the twin towers, now could they?

3: regime changes...explain further.

4: Weapons of mass destrucion? Can't see how an army could stop those either... If you're talking about the consequences of WMD's, then the national task force can handle it.

 

[Sprafa]

Natural disasters, sudden terrorist attacks (with WMDs), regime changes (they can happen without warning), lack of resources (food, oil and such)...

You don't understand what geopoltics are, do you ?

Natural disasters are a factor in geopolitics.

Sudden Terrorist attacks are a consequence of the geopolitics of a faction and a consequence into the geopolitics of nations.

Regime changes are a consequence of the geopolitics of a faction and a consequence into the geopolitics of nations.

Lack of resources are a consequcne of the geopolitics of a nation.

EDIT: last sentence a little too agravating


Do you really think that some new regime comes out of nothing ? Without popular support, it lasts for a few hours, at most.

Sudden Terrorist attacks. Natural disasters. lack of resources. Most of these things do not come without a warning, and all of them would bring great international support to Sweden. You need no Army when you have no enemy except the one in your mind.

 

[Cybernoid]

Do you really think that out of nothing some new regime comes?

Do you? No one has suggested that a regime can appear out of thin air.

Sudden Terrorist attacks. Natural disasters. lack of resources. Most of these things do not come without a warning, and all of them would bring great international support to Sweden. You need no Army when you have no enemy except the one in your mind.

Well gee wiz, the people at the WTC certainly got lots of warnings... not.

 

[NeLi]

Well gee wiz, the people at the WTC certainly got lots of warnings... not.

What's your point mate?

 

[Sprafa]

Do you? No one has suggested that a regime can appear out of thin air.

regime changes (they can happen without warning)

really? For a regime change you need to get popular support, for popular support you need publicity.

Well gee wiz, the people at the WTC certainly got lots of warnings... not.

Not the people at the WTC, but the CIA, FBI and NSA did. They ignored their warnings, smartass.

 

[Cybernoid]

blah blah blah

Once again, no one (at least not me) has claimed that a regime can change at the flip of a switch.

Not the people at the WTC, but the CIA, FBI and NSA did. They ignored their warnings, smartass.

The people at the towers didn't know jack about what was going to happen.

 

[NeLi]

Once again, no one (at least not me) has claimed that a regime can change at the flip of a switch.



The people at the towers didn't know jack about what was going to happen.

So what's your point? I thought you were arguing against the dismantling of our army? Yet you say that the nation with the biggest army in the world still didn't stand a chance against terrorism, which you earlier said was one of the reasons (terrorism) why we should have an army...

You're confusing me.

 

[Cybernoid]

So what's your point? I thought you were arguing against the dismantling of our army? Yet you say that the nation with the biggest army in the world still didn't stand a chance against terrorism, which you earlier said was one of the reasons (terrorism) why we should have an army...

You're confusing me.

I only used the WTC strike as an example to point out that terrorism can be a completely unexpected event, and not something that you can see coming. The Russian school hijack is a more recent example. Had they known about it in advance, they would have intervened.

 

[NeLi]

I only used the WTC strike as an example to point out that terrorism can be a completely unexpected event, and not something that you can see coming. The Russian school hijack is a more recent example. Had they known about it in advance, they would have intervened.

yah, ok, but lets get back on track then. Why exactly do you think we need an army?

I think we've covered the invasion argument...so what's left to talk about?

 

[Cybernoid]

Why exactly do you think we need an army?

1) To fend off an invasion, if or when it occurs. You don't actually even need to fend off anything, the presense of an army is enough of a deterrent.
2) To maintain order in times of civil unrest (and don't tell me that civil unrest can't occur, because it does).
3) To participate in UN or EU military operations. You or someone else said earlier that if Sweden was attacked, the EU would come to help. Well, what if someone else in the EU is attacked? Are you going to help them? No, because you don't have anything to help them with. That can work both ways.

Those reasons are important enough to warrant an army.

And we haven't exactly "covered" the invasion argument. It's not covered when you basically stuff your ears and yell "lalalalalalala there is no war lalalalalalala."

 

[NeLi]

1) To fend off an invasion, if or when it occurs. You don't actually even need to fend off anything, the presense of an army is enough of a deterrent.

But if a country would invade Sweden, it would not only get UN on its asses, but it would probably also start a huge european conflict with severe consequences. Now who would risk that just to suddenly invade a worthless neutral small country like Sweden?

2) To maintain order in times of civil unrest (and don't tell me that civil unrest can't occur, because it does).

To this, we said that if we could downsize the army, we could create a national task force that would take care of all the emergencies within the borders.

3) To participate in UN or EU military operations. You or someone else said earlier that if Sweden was attacked, the EU would come to help. Well, what if someone else in the EU is attacked? Are you going to help them? No, because you don't have anything to help them with. That can work both ways.

Same thing. The Special task force would be divided into seperate brackets, with some of them dealing with for example; UN based missions.

We discussed this "National Task Force" a couple of pages back. Check it out. In my mind, it seems more efficient than an army.

 

[Cybernoid]

But if a country would invade Sweden, it would not only get UN on its asses, but it would probably also start a huge european conflict with severe consequences. Now who would risk that just to suddenly invade a worthless neutral small country like Sweden?

There's not that much the UN can do. The war in Bosnia raged for years until NATO did some bombing runs. The UN was supposed to have sent in a large military force in the beginning, but the US backed out. Bosnia is in Europe. The atrocities performed there were beyond belief, on par or worse than Nazi Germany. And no one gived a toss about it.

And who would risk a huge conflict? Some ****ing fruitcake with an agenda. Plenty of those around.

To this, we said that if we could downsize the army, we could create a national task force that would take care of all the emergencies within the borders.

I don't see any reason to downsize it.

Same thing. The Special task force would be divided into seperate brackets, with some of them dealing with for example; UN based missions.

A few peacekeepers, and nothing more. Not a lot of help when you need to bail out another EU country.

 

[NeLi]

There's not that much the UN can do. The war in Bosnia raged for years until NATO did some bombing runs. The UN was supposed to have sent in a large military force in the beginning, but the US backed out. Bosnia is in Europe. The atrocities performed there were beyond belief, on par or worse than Nazi Germany. And no one gived a toss about it.

And who would risk a huge conflict? Some ****ing fruitcake with an agenda. Plenty of those around.

YEAH, but it would not concern Sweden. WHY? BEcause Sweden can't fill any role in a global evil scheme of madness.

I don't see any reason to downsize it.

Downsize it in terms of jet planes, military bases and manpower. So we can concentrate the funds on the hypothetical "national task force"... We don't need our airforce. Or navy.

A few peacekeepers, and nothing more. Not a lot of help when you need to bail out another EU country.

Well, since we only send about tops 100 troops to other countries, that's really all we need.

 

[Cybernoid]

I give up. When someone is convinced that the world is a static and unchanging place, what can you do?

 

[poseyjmac]

I give up. When someone is convinced that the world is a static and unchanging place, what can you do?

blow it up?

 

[NeLi]

I'm not saying that we do not run the risk of conflict. I'm just saying that it is unlikely, and that we, at this point in time, are somewhat safe. So, it's a great opportunity to try something new. Like, the dismantling of an unnessecary army.