Here's another interesting bit: Up until now it is still required by law that apartment buildings are built with a nuclear proof bunker underneath, including air filters. There are in fact more bunker places than people in Switzerland, i.e. >8M. These bunkers are mostly used as wine cellars and storage rooms now. Also, most of the soldiers take their rifle home and store it, even pass it to their sons. This thing is basically a sniper rifle nowadays, precise for 1300f without scope, 2000f with scope.
But, see, the biggest effect this has is not in scaring off foreign powers (which hasn't been relevant since WW2), but on the people's mentality within the country. The government is seen as the people's employee. The guns at home, the banking secrecy and the direct democracy are in many ways instantiations of this thinking. Politicians wouldn't even think about trying to pass laws that are unpopular. With the tools given, a resistance movement would be very difficult to fight against - it's like a Sword of Damocles hanging over the country that has become so natural, no-one even thinks about it. On the other hand this situation has never materialized since the republic was founded 170 odd years ago, even though there are multiple minority ethnicities - the people's political power with the Referendum is enough to keep everyone content. Majority decisions are true majority decisions.
This country is like a lab, showing that a democracy can be stable, prosperous and peaceful for a long time - if only other nations would recognize the lessons that could be learned from this.
A few quibbles based on what I've followed on guns and the military:
Once the SIG SG 510 AKA Sturmgewehr 57 ("assault rifle" in English, but it's really a battle rifle, and at 12.5 pounds edging close to a machine rifle) was adopted in 1957, upon retirement from the reserves, instead of buying your bolt action rifle at a nominal cost, you'd turn yours in and could in return buy one converted to semi-auto.
The new rifle, the SIG SG 550 AKA Sturmgewehr 90 introduced in 1990 is a true assault rifle, but if a [citation needed] bit in Wikipedia is correct, less than 700,000 were produced and "production for the military has now ceased." I've read elsewhere that a quality civilian version of this rifle costs around $3,000, although the cost in bulk buys would be lower (I personally own the closest one can get to this rifle in the US without going to extremes like switching the barrel for a longer one (I deal with the ballistic failures of 5.56x45mm NATO by using illegal for the military hollow point copper bullets from Barnes)).
(In all cases these are reported to be very accurate rifles with issue ammo, drilling a target at 300 meters has always been an important requirement. Switzerland has in general been pioneering here, e.g. adopting non-corrosive primers in 1911, and lead free ones in 1990.)
Somewhat over 600K sounds lower than the able bodied young-45 years of age cohort, and especially if military production has ceased it's pretty clear the system is changing.
I'd also add that there's lots of evidence many in the Swiss establishment were concerned about an invasion by the Soviets post-WWII (e.g. http://www.amazon.com/Total-Resistance-H-Von-Dach/dp/0873640... which is highly recommended), and as a child of the Cold War myself, over in the US, I don't think that concern was unwarranted.
If the law is still requiring nuclear hardened bunkers, that's extremely wise, for we can be sure some day nuclear weapons will be used in anger again.
Final note: Switzerland is instructive in the durability of true federal system, that with the breakdown of ours in the US with steadily increasing centralization of power in our central government, provides some useful object lessons.
I am not sure how true this is anymore. As far as I am aware, for example, a lot of the equipment necessary for using tunnels as bunkers in case of war has been abandoned or removed.
At least in Germany, in the past a lot of bridged also were prepared to be blown (especially those to the east). I think this is no longer true for anything that was built after ~1990.
Doesn't matter as long as Switzerland responds to any changes in its strategic posture. E.g. that equipment, plenty of which is a wasting resource, can be replenished if its neighborhood gets threatening again.
Yep, and since the invention of guided missiles that could just as easily destroy the bridges and tunnels the explosives have become redundant, too expensive, and not worth the safety risk.
I'm surprised Ukraine didn't consider this tactic pre-emptively against Russia, considering they handed back their nukes.
Instead of a minefield, place gas pipelines around bridges and chokepoints that could accidentally suffer "maintenance failure" and explode in case of invasion.
I'm probably being too simplistic about this, I suppose it would just give Russia an excuse to crush Ukraine using force.
In order to implement a defensive stance, a nation needs to be independent in the first place. It takes years even under the economy of a war to implement a defenses like this - more than enough time for a world power like Russia to prevent it.
The idea of Ukraine independent of Russia is new. It's pretty safe to say that the entire infrastructure in that country was built under Moscow's supervision. It was inconceivable to even think about a plan of defense against an invasion from Russia.
I'm pretty sure that most of them have been removed by now and new bridges and tunnels are no longer built with explosives.
Wouldn't it be just as easy these days to just fire a few missiles at the bridges and tunnels if another country is invading? Yes, and it's much safer and much cheaper to maintain.
So destroying Switzerland is as easy as pretending to invade it. You just have to wait until they blow up their country, then land on their government's parliament building and take over.
See my other comment - the parliament building is pretty much meaningless if a foreign power wants to 'take over'. It's not impossible of course, but it would be prohibitively expensive, as in Afghanistan times a factor X. Using the current situation in the Middle East as an example, one should recognize that a simple 'invasion' is far from taking control over a region.
[+] [-] m_mueller|12 years ago|reply
But, see, the biggest effect this has is not in scaring off foreign powers (which hasn't been relevant since WW2), but on the people's mentality within the country. The government is seen as the people's employee. The guns at home, the banking secrecy and the direct democracy are in many ways instantiations of this thinking. Politicians wouldn't even think about trying to pass laws that are unpopular. With the tools given, a resistance movement would be very difficult to fight against - it's like a Sword of Damocles hanging over the country that has become so natural, no-one even thinks about it. On the other hand this situation has never materialized since the republic was founded 170 odd years ago, even though there are multiple minority ethnicities - the people's political power with the Referendum is enough to keep everyone content. Majority decisions are true majority decisions.
This country is like a lab, showing that a democracy can be stable, prosperous and peaceful for a long time - if only other nations would recognize the lessons that could be learned from this.
[+] [-] hga|12 years ago|reply
Once the SIG SG 510 AKA Sturmgewehr 57 ("assault rifle" in English, but it's really a battle rifle, and at 12.5 pounds edging close to a machine rifle) was adopted in 1957, upon retirement from the reserves, instead of buying your bolt action rifle at a nominal cost, you'd turn yours in and could in return buy one converted to semi-auto.
The new rifle, the SIG SG 550 AKA Sturmgewehr 90 introduced in 1990 is a true assault rifle, but if a [citation needed] bit in Wikipedia is correct, less than 700,000 were produced and "production for the military has now ceased." I've read elsewhere that a quality civilian version of this rifle costs around $3,000, although the cost in bulk buys would be lower (I personally own the closest one can get to this rifle in the US without going to extremes like switching the barrel for a longer one (I deal with the ballistic failures of 5.56x45mm NATO by using illegal for the military hollow point copper bullets from Barnes)).
(In all cases these are reported to be very accurate rifles with issue ammo, drilling a target at 300 meters has always been an important requirement. Switzerland has in general been pioneering here, e.g. adopting non-corrosive primers in 1911, and lead free ones in 1990.)
Somewhat over 600K sounds lower than the able bodied young-45 years of age cohort, and especially if military production has ceased it's pretty clear the system is changing.
I'd also add that there's lots of evidence many in the Swiss establishment were concerned about an invasion by the Soviets post-WWII (e.g. http://www.amazon.com/Total-Resistance-H-Von-Dach/dp/0873640... which is highly recommended), and as a child of the Cold War myself, over in the US, I don't think that concern was unwarranted.
If the law is still requiring nuclear hardened bunkers, that's extremely wise, for we can be sure some day nuclear weapons will be used in anger again.
Final note: Switzerland is instructive in the durability of true federal system, that with the breakdown of ours in the US with steadily increasing centralization of power in our central government, provides some useful object lessons.
[+] [-] _xo_|12 years ago|reply
At least in Germany, in the past a lot of bridged also were prepared to be blown (especially those to the east). I think this is no longer true for anything that was built after ~1990.
[+] [-] hga|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dm2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nikatwork|12 years ago|reply
Instead of a minefield, place gas pipelines around bridges and chokepoints that could accidentally suffer "maintenance failure" and explode in case of invasion.
I'm probably being too simplistic about this, I suppose it would just give Russia an excuse to crush Ukraine using force.
[+] [-] qwerta|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m_mueller|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] contulluipeste|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dm2|12 years ago|reply
I'm pretty sure that most of them have been removed by now and new bridges and tunnels are no longer built with explosives.
Wouldn't it be just as easy these days to just fire a few missiles at the bridges and tunnels if another country is invading? Yes, and it's much safer and much cheaper to maintain.
I remember reading about a tunnel fire that could have set them off and would have been disasterous. http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/archive/Lucerne_yields_up_explos...
http://www.oltnertagblatt.ch/panorama/vermischtes/armee-holt...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Redoubt_(Switzerland)
[+] [-] return0|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] axilmar|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m_mueller|12 years ago|reply