The main idea behind Switzerland's defense is that it is doable to conquer it, but it is very costly for very little gains. It is said that banks vaults of gold are mounted on trains that are designed, in case of alert, to run into underground tunnels that collapse behind them. Taking months to recover.
This is really an interesting system probably tied tightly with their democratic system.
That's only because amry-issued ammo is free. The ammo you buy for shooting at the range you have to pay and they must prevent that people use army ammo instead.
You can buy amo and take it home anytime you want if you are at least 18 years old.
In about 25% of all cases where firearms are involved they are military firearms (pistols or rifles). That does not include suicide unless connected with some sort of violent crime where a firearm was involved.
The "normal" suicides trough a firearm probably have a higher rate of military firearms because people probably choose the firearm with the higher success rate. Also because suicide is more likely to be committed by younger persons and younger male persons usually do own a military rifle. If one completely finished military service and you want to keep your rifle you can do that. It will be converted to a semi-automatic rifle. This then would not count as suicide my military firearm anymore. Depending on military function this can be anywhere between the age of 30 up to the age of 40.
> In 83.1% (n = 1112) of the 1338 suicides by firearm between 2000 and 2010 in Switzerland, the firearm could be categorised as an army weapon or a non-army weapon. The army weapon was used in 39.1% of these suicides.
But that is not surprising. Suicides often happen out of an impulse and then people use the best available and easiest accessible means to kill themselves. And an army weapon fulfills those conditions much better than anything else people have at home.
I don't know if there are already newer studies that take into account that the ammunition isn't storaged at home anymore.
I also couldn't find any numbers on "family tragedies".
Yes, you can easily buy ammo. But again, most suicides are not really planned. The studies about suicides are quite consistent that only about 10–15% of attempters eventually die by suicide.
That means if you don't have an effective way of ending your life at hand, it's likely that you will not try again successfully.
If you need ammunition, you are not likely to go out and get it. That's inconvenient and even if you go out and want to get it, that takes time in which you might reconsider.
It's worth noting that this is a trend, not a black and white rule. Some people _do_ plan it ahead of time, in some form or another.
E.g. my uncle specifically bought rope and carabiners prior to his suicide, and, apparently, had googled instructions on how to tie a noose several days ahead of the actual thing.
I imagine it comes in waves. And even if one wave just pushes someone to the point that buys ammo, the next has to push it only to load the gun, and the final one just has to push it to pull the trigger a little harder. :/
They certainly did until it was forbidden to take ammunition home. In 2000 suicide by guns was 27% and in 2016 it was 20% of all suicides in Switzerland. Compared to other countries with more restrictive policies that is a lot more...
Surely there's a relationship between giving all your citizens a gun and higher firearm ownership. If the policy is deadly, does it matter whether the death happens with a service rifle or a weapon they bought because of their happy memories?
I mean, it's not exactly as if the Swiss militia let them operate an independent foreign policy last time they felt threatened with invasion.
The simple truth is that an accessible gun has a higher chance of being abused or involved in an accident than one that is locked in an arsenal or doesn't exist in the first place.
Even in law enforcement, even though they often need guns, no matter what country, guns are abused regularly.
Which reminds me of the video of an FBI officer that accidentally discharged his weapon while break dancing.
It's relatively easy to find such incidences online. It's also easy to forget that Switzerland is quite a small country and underestimate the relative frequency.
The Swiss army is mostly based on myths. Yes, the army reserve does undergo regular training, but most of that is a joke and they would be nowhere near ready for actual attacks.
I mean, even our air force only operates only during office hours.
We do have some geographic advantages though (the Alps).
It is mandatory (for men) army service.
If you are found as "unfit for army" during admission, you are obliged to pay tax that amounts to min 600 chf p.a (if the young person has no fixed income) or 3% of his salary until he reaches 40y old. Essentially, you have minor health condition and you pay for this for the next 20 years.....This is one of the most unfair tax I have seen.
Based on recent experience I would say army commissions are quick to pronounce someone unfit, easy money...
The worst is that they can have their cake and eat it too.
My case: initially deemed fit to serve, did my recruit school and most of my WKs, had only a few days of service left to do. And then; "sorry, you are actually unfit to serve". And now, I get to pay the tax as if I did nothing. Ok, not really; I have a reduction because of the days of service I already did, but it's nowhere near a pro-rata rate. After the sacrifices I had to do to accomodate them, I am rather disgusted.
Is there any kind of appeal? Do they actually get the money directly (i.e. they declare you unfit = they get a bigger budget)? Do you have any kind of chance to make it up (e.g. you're unfit because your BMI exceeds some value or you can't run up a hundred steps, so you get to spend six months working on it and then they let you do your last few days)? Or the first you learn about it is the big bill end of story?
I know the army isn't meant to sound like a walk in the park, but it sounds not just unfair, but genuinely unjust.
Admittedly, I'm a bit of a special case: I have a chronic condition since my teenage years, but it was only diagnosed recently. And the decision of the army did appear with the bill. But usually, most people don't try to get in the swiss army, but rather out. The military service is not exactly popular among the young generation, and a lot of people would prefer to do an alternative service (civilian service or civil protection) to avoid the military tax. A trend in politics is to make those alternatives as unattractive as possible (from an economic perspective, or the number of days you have to servce). The army seems to have difficulties to fill their ranks (or so they claim, at least). As far as my experience goes, there aren't picky on the medical part during the recruitment. Trying to cheat the medical experts with all kind of stuff (claiming to do drugs, to be suicidal, ...) is a common way to try to avoid the military service.
A reason I'm so bitter about it is the fact that, while my condition _did_ seriously affect me during the recruit school from a physical point of view (long walks and stuff like that, but it was still undiagnosed, and the military medics at the time simply judged that I was a "simulator"), using it as a pretext to have me pay the tax now, when my militaries duties are hardly more than office work, after I struggled so much to actually overcome my disease and complete the hard part, feels... unfair.
It's noteworthy that Switzerland was called out by the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) on the matter, judging it discriminatory[0]. Following that, a system to allow people with disabilities to candidate for the army service has been introduced[1]. I'm currently trying to be reintegrated. However, they still reserve the rights to refuse anyone for any reason. So, I guess I will see if it's real, or just a mock to please the ECHR.
This sounds way worse than it is.
You get exactly 50% less to pay if you did 50% of your service + you pay less long because you start to pay when you drop out instead of directly after you turn 18.
Paying 18 to 40 is clearly not the same as paying 30 to 40.
Sorry, but your number are wrongs. The very _maximum_ biggest reduction you can get is 40%, and, thanks to the recently passed new law, the duration is the very same for everyone.
In hindsight, it was sloppy of me to not precise that I was speaking specifically for a private in the standard service model. For people with higher number of days to serve, it's possible to have more than 40%.
The "office hour" argument really grinds my gears.
It was originally a deliberate political decision to collaborate with neighboring air forces to save costs and work around the fact that there weren't enough pilots and material ready (again a cost issue). When this was more publicized due to some incident when the french airforce had to intervene at night, everyone acted surprised, especially political parties that keep on demanding cost reduction.
Currently, the times have been extended from 6am to 10pm, and in beginning of 2021 a 24h/365d coverage will be implemented.
But if Switzerland can't afford enough pilots and material to run a twenty-four hour airforce, does it matter that it's a cost issue that prevents them from running a 24 hour airforce? I mean, will Switzerland be running a top quality defensive air force from 2021 or will they be running two thirds of a top quality defensive air force? Is Switzerland able to afford it?
Far from defending Switzerland against the charge of running a half rate airforce, you raise legitimate concerns. If I wanted to invade a country, I probably wouldn't pick Switzerland. But if I wanted to invade Switzerland, being unable to afford an airforce in a time of wealth is awfully encouraging.
It's not "can't afford". It's "as a landlocked country surrounded by allies with whom it has extensive defence agreements, it can't justify spending the money it takes to run its airforce at full capacity."
From a financial perspective, Switzerland could definitely afford a larger military force (defence expenditure is around 0.6% of the GDP, as a comparison the NATO sets the guideline to 2% of the GDP [Note: Switzerland is not part of the NATO, but it is a useful comparison to neighboring countries]).
The question is solely political, how much money is Switzerland willing to spend for an army/airforce? And this question undoubtedly correlates with the current feeling of safety and threat of conflict.
Anyone that would be interested in invading Switzerland has to go through an aweful lot of other countries first. Or do you really believe Switzerland needs to be ready to defend against France, Germany, Italy, Austria or Lichtenstein?
There simply is currently no conceivable threat scenario that needs to be countered.
First of all, the exactly same reasoning was used after the horrors of WWI, when everyone believed another European war will never be repeated, with known results on the readiness of the Swiss Army at the beginning of WWII.
Second, conflicts are on a gradient, from scattered terrorist attacks to a full on military invasion, there is a lot in between.
The statement that there is no conceivable threat scenario is ridiculous.
Not true. You are not allowed to take military (free) ammo home. You can however legally buy amo if you are 18 years old and legally own the compatible firearm to the ammo you buy.
> Most citizens are army reserve and regularly go for training.
FTFY: Most male citizens are forced to serve in the army and are forced to regularly go for training, or pay a hefty fine each year.
Uh? And what's the difference between what you said and what he said? I mean it's expected that, if they refuse, they'd have to pay a fine. Otherwise nobody would go
Sure okay, let's be serious. The fittest and strongest Swiss woman is fitter and stronger than the least fit and weakest Swiss man. How much overlap does there need to be before it's a serious concern?
Hopefully diet and health today are much better than in the past - probably there's a huge overlap between the tail of women who are not in top decile today, and men who were fit enough to join a century ago. To the extent that there's not, since woman ore exclude, there probably could be with a small amount of training. If a person of a certain strength a century ago was capable of serving their country, why isn't an equivalently strong person today capable?
Moreover, there's many duties in the army that don't directly require top decile strength. Naturally, some of these will need to be done by people who are recovering (since, having recovered, perhaps they will be top decile again). But the amount of technical skill in modern warfare is considerable. A woman could control a drone strike fair easier than a man in recovery.
Aside from snide comments, do you have any reason to think half an army is better than a whole one?
Fortunately, we don't have to faff about with probablies and suppositions. We have the distributions measured, and political factors aside, it is settled.
Anybody that can get through the training and meet the standards ought to be able to serve. Putting people that can't perform in combat is going to get them, and others, killed though.
The article doesn't mention it, but the bunkers here in Switzerland are serious structures. From the WSJ: "A Swiss shelter must withstand an impact of a 12-megaton explosion at a distance of 700 meters (765 yards). ..." [1].
Also, a lot of town/cities have a fully redundant water distribution system. In Zurich, for instance, the water coming out of the 100s of fountains you see around town comes from either of these and they are swapped regularly [2].
> In Zurich, for instance, the water coming out of the 100s of fountains you see around town comes from either of these and they are swapped regularly [2].
There are two systems:
- The regular system plugged into every house, business and most fountains around the city.
- The emergency system, available at a few special fountains designed specifically for emergencies (e.g. they have a hydrant inside them so that they can be used to fill large containers quickly).
As far as I know, the systems are entirely isolated from each other, with different springs, pipes and everything. They can't be swapped.
I can't find any evidence supporting that. I find numerous references referring to the supply as if it was distinct from the normal supply and none that indicate it is in any way connected to the main water supply:
A quick check on Nukemap suggests that a 12MT explosion at ground level produces a crater 210m deep and with a radius of 0.88km at the outer edge so that requirement seems a bit optimistic....
Nuclear warheads are not designed to be detonated at ground level. The optimum burst height for maximum damage (presumably not to bunkers, but to other structures) goes up with the bomb yield. For megaton yields that altitude will be several km.
From what I recall, the really large weapons (10MT-25MT) were mainly intended, at least in the latter stages of the Cold War, to be used against hard targets.
I've heard rumors that Taiwan does something similar in preparation for an invasion by mainland China. Specifically that sensitive areas within TSMC facilities are lined with explosives. It makes for a great story, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were true, but I've never been able to find a reliable source for this.
It's important to note that these are days gone by.
The majority of these bunkers and forts are dismantled, the size of the army has gone down to 100,000 people (from 600,000 in the 50s, while the population has almost doubled), tanks and artillery are outdated (infantry is kept quite modern, to be fair), the support of the army in the voting population has also decreased.
Is this good or bad? I don't know.
Is the threat of a war in the middle of Europe really down to zero? I don't know.
> vernacular architecture has also played a prominent role in Swiss defense. Across the countryside, many structures that look like quaint barns or traditional homes were designed to house everything from bunkers to anti-aircraft guns
I'll now have to look suspiciously at every Swiss building I come across.
I grew up in the Midwest. The version of cow tipping that I heard about was to get some naieve urbanites, typically college students, all geared up about cow tipping and the theory behind it. Then take them to a pasture in the middle of the night, typically with alcohol involved. The idea is that they will return to the dorm rather covered in mud or "mud," as it were, never quite sure if they were pranked or not.
Of course I have no idea if anything like this has ever actually happened.
When I was in Switzerland a month or so ago, I played "spot the bunker/fallout shelter" with my friends. There's a lot, especially in the more mountainous areas.
A few years ago they did a military exercise where France, in a state of civil war/secession following a government bankruptcy, used its military to try and loot Swiss wealth.
Military exercises which result in such amusing news happen quite often. Like the regular invasions of Liechtenstein by "accident".
But usually, the invading forces are color coded and not named with real life names. I remember doing one where from the west blue forces, from the north brown forces and from the east red forces were the enemies.
It's hard to come up with realistic military scenarios that involve invasions of foreign forces if you are a small landlocked country which is completely surrounded by friendly, democratic countries. :-)
Bridges along the eastern border of West Germany were at least be built to be rigged with explosives too. What looked like drain covers were actually the lids of the explosive chambers. For pictures see [1] (article is in German).
Regarding Switzerland, there is this absurdly high production value propaganda Triptych-Cinerama-short produced for the 64 swiss national expo.
Fortress of Peace (Wehrhafte Schweiz / La Suisse vigilante / La Svizzera vigilante) with countermobility action all over the place and prominently in this section:
I served 25 years ago in a unit with civil engineers (I’m not one). At this time, it was already a project in one of the yearly training courses, which infrastructure should be disarmed because a destruction would have impact on other infrastructure (e.g. tape water supply).
the author mentioned, john mcphee, is my favorite nonfiction author, and i couldn't recommend him more highly. i was disappointed to see that the now surely out of print place de la concorde suisse was not easily available on the usual ebook resources, but he's an author worth paying for.
another excellent book of his that would likely line up well with hn-adjacent interests is the curve of binding energy, written in the early 90s about a physicist's concern with the risk of nuclear proliferation among nonstate actors:
I enjoy McPhee's writing, but I couldn't help thinking that in Place de la Concorde Suisse, he was regurgitating the propaganda his sources fed him, rather than getting an accurate picture. While there are some people in Swiss society who enjoy military service, the majority of military age men dislike the army (and voted to abolish the army outright in 1989; it was the votes of the past-military age generation which preserved the army).
As for fighting effectiveness, luckily it has never been tested. But having seen the workings of the army firsthand, from the me-too way in which weapons systems are purchased, to the hidebound mediocrities who permeate the officer corps and army leadership, to the sheer implausibility of an army that has not fought a war in 200+ years being any good at it, I have zero expectation that the army would be anything but an expensive joke in an actual war.
The history of Switzerland the country is also very interesting. Basically a bunch of high-altitude towns that were rivals got together and decided to fend off their common enemy: low land despots.
Initially, it was just a few hundred merchants and peasants banding together and using home-made poles with sickles on the ends to fend off armored knights. But by the end of the rebellion thousands of people from dozens of hilltop villages had joined together.
That kernel formed an informal alliance that grew into Switzerland over time.
Even today, the various Cantons see themselves as kind of independent of each other. They copied the US constitution, but while the US became a more centralized and despotic state ... the Swiss kept the original federalist design of the US constitution.
Individual cantons have their own public or private health systems. They have their own education budgets. There is a huge amount of variation between the cantons. And basically Switzerland refuses to join most European efforts to disolve national boundaries.
The swiss constitution has been revised a few times. The Switzerland from 1291 is different from the Switzerland now.
> The creation of a bicameral assembly was consciously inspired by the United States Constitution, the National Council and Council of States corresponding to the House of Representatives and Senate, respectively
Duties and responsibilities in the Swiss health care system are divided among the federal, cantonal, and municipal levels of government. The system can be considered highly decentralized, as the cantons play a critical role. Each of the 26 cantons (including six half-cantons) has its own constitution and is responsible for licensing providers, coordinating hospital services, and subsidizing institutions and individual premiums. The federal government plays an important role in regulating the financing of the system, which is effected through mandatory health insurance (MHI) and other social insurance; ensuring the quality and safety of pharmaceuticals and medical devices; overseeing public health initiatives; and promoting research and training. The municipalities, in turn, are responsible mainly for long-term care (nursing homes and home care services) and other social support services for vulnerable groups.
I've often wondered if we should follow the Swiss' example on a planetary scale.
It's not that an alien invasion is particularly likely, but, just in case, we might want to plant a few nukes here and there, in strategic locations. That is, locations selected to make it very clear to any potential invader from the stars that sending an interstellar invasion armada to Earth would be all cost and no benefit.
I mean, we already have all those nukes lying around, ready to blow the planet to smithereens. We might as well put them into use as actual "deterrents".
As a side note, this site has _very_ interesting podcast episodes. Just yesterday I listened to the one from last week [1] about stamps from the GBLA [2].
This is an old strategy, nowadays the army works differently. But still, these are interesting tidbits of history. Many old bunkers have been decomissioned and taken over by associations preserving them as museums. Others are opened for the public like the Great War's bunker just below the top of the Sigriswiler Rothorn (Schafloch). Instead of hiking over the top I just went through it with my son. It was very dark, labyrinthine and scary. My son loved it.
The plan for West Germany in case of a sudden Soviet invasion was to destroy bridges and railways, render tunnels unusable by dropping huge concrete blocks on the entrances or – my favourite – filling them with foam so Diesel motors would suffocate while driving through; and destroying many roads.
All just to buy a little time to be able to mount an actual defence against the invasion in France.
The plan for West Germany was to use nuclear land mines in the Fulda Gap to both destroy whole divisions en route and to create massive geological barriers.
I think in Korea (not sure if the pictures I saw were taken in the North or South) there are the same type of preparations, with obstacles ready to be deployed on N-S roads, like concrete block above the road ready to be dropped.
Norway used to at least have bridges built to be easily rigged (they may have been rigged for all I know at some point as well). That fell out of favor "some time ago", and apparently there was recently(-ish) questions about resuming the practice again.
Same in Sweden. Sweden basically was like how Switzerland is described here. But that ended when the end of History occurred. (1990-ish, and there would be peace forever.)
This subject has fascinated me for a long time. One of the best books about it is called "La Place De LA Concorde Suisse" it's actually in English and well worth a read.
It's hard to argue that a dot on the map is a country. And it's probably not in their interest to be too obvious the next time someone's going around invading European states.
I guess it depends on the question we're asking and answering. Maybe the wrong question was asked? Does an armed and trained populace prevent a constitutional disorder? It seems that no-one would say the Swiss system was worth imitating if, two or three times since they instituted it, there were military coups including a multi-generational dictatorship. A refined question certainly improves the appearance of the Swiss system without seeming arbitrary.
On the other hand, who knows. Maybe the Swiss democracy is like the American democracy - and primarily exists to serve the interests of a well connected minority. It's hard to say it's good to keep a system that preserves the interests of a powerful minority in that kind of context.
Setting aside the highly relevant particulars of history mentioned in other replies, it's odd to me that every city isn't designed this way; we'd probably have less wars if they were. The main incentives for invading countries are
1) taking resources/land
2) travelling through to take other countries' resources/land
and
3) self defense.
If you aren't attacking anyone, and attacking you is more trouble than it's worth, you'll most likely be left alone.
<insert pedantic quibble about value judgements rabble rabble good v.s. good at averting wars>
I think horizontal nuclear proliferation would make us (the US and others) less likely to invade other nations, and I would like to see a world where nuclear weapons are more evenly distributed so that we stop bombing so many children. I do see how my "more trouble than it's worth" line can be taken as leading into that, but I wasn't trying to go there even though I totally see it in retrospect. I think it's fair to note that this self-sabotage strategy can potentially make the entity employing it more trouble than it's worth to invade without becoming a threatening force. By making all of your tunnels and bridges useless in times of war, you're not a good route to other enemy lands. The more you're willing to burn, the less appealing it is to control you. What good is salted earth? If you additionally offer some economic benefits in trade, the chances of invasion go down even further... and you don't have to worry about provoking the enemy to attack out of fear. Honestly, I feel like nukes are a safer bet at deterrence, but I could be wrong. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The self-destruction model is certainly cheaper.
The Swiss method, unlike Mutually Assured Destruction, does not induce fear, and it it not intended to - it is intended to induce caution and self-interest in potential invaders.
Most citizens are army reserve and regularly go for training. Many own a war weapon at home (that is strictly forbidden to take out without orders)
They also have underground air bases that allow plane to take off from national roads and that are designed to resist nuclear bombings:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=296&v=vEOLonBfaD...
The main idea behind Switzerland's defense is that it is doable to conquer it, but it is very costly for very little gains. It is said that banks vaults of gold are mounted on trains that are designed, in case of alert, to run into underground tunnels that collapse behind them. Taking months to recover.
This is really an interesting system probably tied tightly with their democratic system.