Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sweden brings back military conscription

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 418 posts

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#101

Post by johan_larson »

raverbashing wrote: post #88
chrisseaton wrote: post #6

How do you motivate a conscript? When I was in the British Army, which is volunteer only, commanding a basic training troop if someone was wanted to give up we could say to them 'if this isn't for you then you can go home' (of course we did coach and mentor people to help them, I mean in cases where people just give up and stop soldiering when an exercise gets tough). They usually worked extremely hard to get into th…

They get the motivated people first They're aiming for a low number, so it should be easy to achieve Of course, there might be some punishment as well if a person fails to perform to the expected level of duty

Yeah, 4,000 out of a cohort of 13,000 means you can be very selective. Easy enough to get rid of the real fuckups and the hell-no-way refuseniks. Give the rest some real choice in what they'll be trained for, and you might only have to say no to those with a clear mismatch between their hopes and what they are fit for.

It's interesting that they are choosing to draft both men and women. Not a lot of places draft women.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#102

Post by zilean »

kaitnieks wrote: post #86
zilean wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're a soldier and your government tells you to invade a random country with nice people, how willing are you to fight? Ironically Western counties are very good at it.

Well, no, not really. Western countries always get a huge backlash for any military activity in any region. This is where the propaganda and state controlled media opinion would be very useful, at least for the military.

Admitedly i dont consume much western media, but i fail to see how this is the case with Syria, Lybia and what have you. Again, if this is not stopping them, why this should worry Russia.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#103

Post by travmatt »

thedevil wrote: post #13

I'm not sure why Sweden would be concerned. I read Russian news/propaganda occasionally. Over the last few years, Russian news/propaganda prepared Russian minds for interfering in Ukraine. And the propaganda includes arguments to justify a military buildup. And it seems to be preparing Russian minds for a possible invasion of Baltic states one day. But I don't think I've even seen Sweden mentioned in Russian news/pro…

>Non-aligned Sweden is worried about Russia's Baltic military drills.

>Ms Nyh Radebo said that "70% of parliament is behind the decision to strengthen the military and co-operation with the countries around us".

>The closest co-operation is with Finland, she added.

>Sweden’s prime minister, Stefan Löfven, told a national defence conference this week that he “cannot rule out” Russia trying to influence the country’s next elections, which are due in 2018.

>“We should not rule it out and be naive and think that it does not happen in Sweden. That’s why information and cybersecurity is part of this strategy,” Löfven told the TT news agency.

>https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/11/russia-waging-...

And that's besides the massive russian campaigns to cut off electricity to estonia. It'd probably be something akin to a professional negligence for a military commander not to recommend this, and it seems Swedish politicians for some reason aren't buying the 'put down your weapons and abandon your allies' line of argument.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#104

Post by sailfast »

chrisseaton wrote: post #6

How do you motivate a conscript? When I was in the British Army, which is volunteer only, commanding a basic training troop if someone was wanted to give up we could say to them 'if this isn't for you then you can go home' (of course we did coach and mentor people to help them, I mean in cases where people just give up and stop soldiering when an exercise gets tough). They usually worked extremely hard to get into th…

"Your country needs you."

If that isn't working, then you probably need to re-think why you've gone with a conscript army. I think in this case, a solid case could be made that recent aggression means we need to be able to defend the homeland and other powers we might normally depend on won't do it for us so "Let's go!"

Once folks are in, I'd imagine that some powerful team dynamics take over. All this said, I'm speaking out of turn because I've not served, just worked alongside for a number of years.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#105

Post by crystalmeph »

BurningFrog wrote: post #73
DamnYuppie wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need massive air and naval power to be very tough to attack. All you have to do is see the Afghan wars, both Russian and American, for great examples. They had no airforce and no need for naval forces. A large armed and mobile force is very able to put up solid resistance to pretty much anything you can throw at it save for nukes which will likely never be used.

Afghanistan was easily conquered by both the USSR and the US.

For certain values of "conquered." The "bad guys" never seem to be completely conquered, and still enjoy significant freedom of movement and access to supply lines.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#106

Post by mikeash »

BurningFrog wrote: post #73
DamnYuppie wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need massive air and naval power to be very tough to attack. All you have to do is see the Afghan wars, both Russian and American, for great examples. They had no airforce and no need for naval forces. A large armed and mobile force is very able to put up solid resistance to pretty much anything you can throw at it save for nukes which will likely never be used.

Afghanistan was easily conquered by both the USSR and the US.

But not easily held. Both nations would probably think twice before trying it again.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#107

Post by travmatt »

devopsproject wrote: post #93
thedevil wrote: post #13

I'm not sure why Sweden would be concerned. I read Russian news/propaganda occasionally. Over the last few years, Russian news/propaganda prepared Russian minds for interfering in Ukraine. And the propaganda includes arguments to justify a military buildup. And it seems to be preparing Russian minds for a possible invasion of Baltic states one day. But I don't think I've even seen Sweden mentioned in Russian news/pro…

You are misinformed because you are reading propaganda. They won't be relaying their plans of that channel. Here are some recent events: russian planes flying into Swedish air space russian sub in water near Stockholm Norway beefing up their border troops etc.

Russia launching attacks on Estonian critical infrastructure.

Active disinformation campaigns targeting Norway, Sweden.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#108

Post by seppin »

_lbaq wrote: post #5
thearn4 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically Sweden has not been invaded in quite a long time, right?

Last war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish–Norwegian_War_(1814) So +200 years without war and counting

I don't get why people hold this up as an accomplishment.

The world has been at war several times and Sweden has fought only a few times on small scales. When you building is on fire, but your are safe in your flat, it's not a moral decision to lock your door and goto sleep for the night.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#109

Post by mikeash »

icambron wrote: post #83
67726e wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's air and naval power. Expensive and complex hi tech death machines. Afghanistan would beg to differ... > Of course, a 10m country will never have a really credible defense against nuclear super power Russia by itself. Unless the goal of fighting a war is to wipe the opposing side off the face of the earth, no, it's a credible defense. You bleed the enemy until they lose the will to fight.

> Afghanistan would beg to differ. You're not looking at this from the Afghan perspective. From the American and Russian perspective, yes, occupying Afghanistan is a painful deathtrap. But for the Afghans their occupation is...also a painful deathtrap. Eventually winning (or even sort of winning) a war of low-tech attrition involves sacrificing a lot of lives, losing political control, and having foreign soldiers sol…

The goal is not to get invaded in the first place. If you can make the conquest too expensive for the enemy then they won't try it, even if it's also expensive for you.

Obviously this didn't work for Afghanistan, but their example can help it work for others.

Edit: if you become part of a larger war then it can also be advantageous to make the occupation painful for the enemy when it happens. The more you hurt them, the easier and faster your allies will win. Consider Norway in the Second World War: they had no hope of overthrowing the German occupation themselves, but the resistance still contributed significantly to its eventual end.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#110

Post by zilean »

kaitnieks wrote: post #97
zilean wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whats wrong with RT in general (besides funding) and this article in particular? > It would be nice for Russia to have a swath from Crimea to Dontesk up through Latvia, just look at a map. Why take this land? It does nothing strategically, has population that you need to subsidise, etc. Crimea allows Black Sea control. Kaliningrad effectively makes Baltic inner sea for Russia and if there ever would be any baltic act…

Latvia has a population you need to subsidize? What do you mean by that?

You cant just occupy country w/o sanctions, export/import chains breaking, you need to rebuild what would be inevitably destroyed during the invasion, etc.
Post reply on HN