EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 690
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21665 Posts
On March 03 2017 00:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: True? https://twitter.com/ClaraJeffery/status/837312957201580032 Reuters has it aswell http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sweden-military-idUSKBN1690ND | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
From the above article: A government investigation last year found that with unemployment near zero among the talented youngsters the armed forces targets, only about 2,500 were recruited annually while the military needed 4,000. The wages for professional soldiers run well below the national average for the age group, providing little monetary incentive, while the pool of potential recruits, primarily former conscripts from before 2010, has steadily shrunk. "This buffer is now exhausted and that leaves great challenges in recruiting," said Johan Osterberg, a researcher in staffing at the Swedish Defense University. Here's where the real problem lies. Pay them better. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 02 2017 17:56 maybenexttime wrote: If Russia does not want enemies on its borders, then it probably should stop making them. For centuries Russia has been a major bully in the region. When you try to be on good terms with that country, it sees it as a weakness and abuses that. Germany was Poland's mortal enemy for a thousand years. Now we are on good terms and have a relatively healthy relationship. Change is possible, but requires good will on both sides. On this point, at least, I could give some qualified agreement. While it's true that Russia has very good reason for being unfriendly with certain neighbors, I do think that more should be done in the way of good-willed cultural outreach. That has indeed been a historic shortfall. Hell, only recently did the Russian government realize that it was a pretty good idea to reach out to Israel - a country that, whether or not it would want to admit it, has important cultural ties to Russia. And that's a matter that's a few decades later than it should have been. I say it's qualified agreement, though, because "talk shit get hit" is something that Russia's neighbors should keep in mind as well. But I do agree that Russia should have and should continue to do more in fostering friendlier relations abroad. Putin is well ahead of the Soviets in that regard for that matter, though it's still not really enough. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28664 Posts
Based on my memory of some article I read a while back anymore, if any swede wants to correct me I encourage that. ;p | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21665 Posts
On March 03 2017 00:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: sweden isn't even part of nato though. This is definitely related to russian developments, but I dunno if Trump deserves any (negative) credit. I recently read about some swedish military expert lamenting over how the swedish army is the by far weakest it has ever been - their position of neutrality has historically been coupled with a relatively strong army, now they have a position of neutrality combined with the weakest army they've ever had, and with how the world seems an increasingly dangerous place, I guess they weren't comfortable with that anymore. Based on my memory of some article I read a while back anymore, if any swede wants to correct me I encourage that. ;p They have made some advances towards joining Nato. At which point Russia outright threatened invasion. Source (A good one for LL's "Putin does not mean bad") Can't blame them for wanting to maintain military readiness. | ||
Nixer
2774 Posts
On March 03 2017 00:42 LegalLord wrote: In all honesty conscription is something of an outdated practice. The days when mobilizing lots of troops for the purpose of having a bigger army being effective are gone. Certainly, it might come with some benefit to have more easily trained reservists - a mandatory military service has non-military benefits as well, for example - but in the modern world the more important factor is technology and experience. Conscripts simply aren't very good for using advanced technology that takes many years to learn and such technologies are what actually matters for most regular fighting. For irregular fighting (basically just occupation of a foreign country where gorilla warfare is a concern) more troops are useful but I doubt there's a lot of countries that care about that. From the above article: Here's where the real problem lies. Pay them better. For a small country some form of conscription is typically the only cost effective way you can bolster your military and defense. The effectiveness of conscript troops, and reserves as training doesn't or shouldn't end after your conscription service, can be more or less the same as professional troops. You have to remember that the average professional soldier gets the same amount of training as a conscript before getting into the field and action. The combat effectiveness and level of skill with good training can still be quite respectable. A conscription system obviously doesn't mean there won't be any professional personnel either. I'm not quite sure what you mean by advanced technology here. They're starting with only 4000 most likely since they can't really logistically (and organizationally) support training more at this time. I guess we still have to remember that Sweden more or less has a "buffer state" between themselves and Russia, hah. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
By advanced technology I mean any of the machines that characterize modern warfare. Drones, airplanes, tanks, artillery, AA, anything else really. Using or maintaining these technologies requires increasingly specialized knowledge, and usually a conscript who did little more than go through basic training is going to be less useful than someone who has used the technology for a few years and understands how to use it effectively. And professional soldiers are around for longer. Looking at the article it's clear that Sweden isn't spending what it needs to on its military to make it work. Nothing wrong with wanting more troops but perhaps they should spend the money to make military service lucrative enough to entice people to join. Might be expensive but it's what's necessary if you want a better, not just bigger, military. | ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
| ||
|
Nixer
2774 Posts
On March 03 2017 02:42 LegalLord wrote: Professional soldiers and conscripts may start at the same level - but one of the two stays around and grows as a military person, the other generally leaves as soon as possible to pursue other paths. And the one that's around longer will become much more effective. While a fully professional service, such as that of the US, is not always possible, professional soldiers should be emphasized as much as possible, followed by educated reservists. Logistics are also a bitch - more personnel, more logistical necessities, of course. Often it leads to a situation where you have lots of soldiers who all make good fodder because they aren't effective. By advanced technology I mean any of the machines that characterize modern warfare. Drones, airplanes, tanks, artillery, AA, anything else really. Using or maintaining these technologies requires increasingly specialized knowledge, and usually a conscript who did little more than go through basic training is going to be less useful than someone who has used the technology for a few years and understands how to use it effectively. And professional soldiers are around for longer. Looking at the article it's clear that Sweden isn't spending what it needs to on its military to make it work. Nothing wrong with wanting more troops but perhaps they should spend the money to make military service lucrative enough to entice people to join. Might be expensive but it's what's necessary if you want a better, not just bigger, military. Most of what you described would and should be handled well by conscripts. Except for the military aircraft of course but like I said you have actual professionals for that among other things. Still I certainly don't see a larger and majority professional army as a requirement considering how expensive that would be. The minimal conscription time and training Swedish conscripts went through before the abolishment roughly 7 years ago was a bit more than just basic training I might add. Professional troops don't get to partake in constant training and military exercises all the time while in service either, this seems to be quite a common misconception. But yes they'll be more familiar with their respective equipment, there's no doubting that, but not to an extreme degree where the general combat effectiveness somehow would be a lot worse. Nor are they magically super soldiers, those don't exist yet by the way, since there wouldn't be much difference in equipment between a standard conscript and a professional grunt. One thing that's quite interesting and important to note is that even though professional soldiers are usually more individually skilled and fit an actual force of conscripts can be better or at the very least on par as far as unit combat effectiveness goes. Might sound strange but that's just how it is. The explanation for this is generally that with conscription you'll have a larger sample of types of people to pick from. Now this of course depends on the model of conscription to an extent but the basic principle of it is still there. When it's completely voluntary recruitment, especially with low wages so you're certainly right about that, the type of soldier you end up with is almost always the same. That's the most simple explanation I can give you. Now I do agree that the spending is quite pathetic, there's quite a severe lack of materiel generally speaking as a result of voluntary downsizing. But the bottom line is fairly simple, it's just not really realistic for Sweden in their situation and size to not use a conscription model if they wish to increase their military presence unless they wish to spend a lot more. That's just part of their analysis. I'm fairly certain military experts and those involved know what they're on about as well so it's not like you somehow found a magical solution. Also we have to remember what kind of signal this sends. + Show Spoiler + Please don't start babbling about hidden cost because that's an endless pit and as far as I'm concerned a complete waste of time. btw this is quite far from actual conscription | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
"Military experts say this is how it should work" is sort of a copout unless they provide reasoning. What do you mean by "hidden costs?" I didn't say anything there so I'm curious what that even means in this context. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On March 03 2017 04:17 Big J wrote: Does anyone have some interesting news on Fillion's house being searched? Nothing particular I think, it's part of the investigation. The interesting thing is that more and more people are leaving his campaign. Juppé's lieutenants dropped out today. Some elected representatives from the right published a text in the press to ask for Fillon's withdrawal. On the other side, a demonstration is scheduled Sunday to support him. Edit: according to some poll today, 75% of the French want Fillon to withdraw (47% for UMP/LR sympathizers). | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21665 Posts
On March 03 2017 06:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Sweden reintroduces the draft due to Russian threatening Sweden with mock bombing runs. Legalord is against the idea of any country resisting itself against the great mother Russia. Yawn. And the threat of invasion if they join Nato. (see my earlier post for a source) | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7887 Posts
On March 03 2017 06:35 LegalLord wrote: Both of you need a lesson in reading comprehension it seems, considering nothing of the sort was said. And what is your position on Russia's attitude towards Sweden? | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 03 2017 07:15 Biff The Understudy wrote: And what is your position on Russia's attitude towards Sweden? That there "will be consequences" if Sweden joins NATO? A reasonable statement of fact. Airspace violations and the like? I'm not a fan, I think it sends the wrong message. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
Also, conscription at this scale is just bizarre. If you can't motivate a couple of thousand people to join your military with some incentive rather than force then there is something wrong. | ||
| ||
