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

Camouflaged Military Bunkers of Switzerland (2015)

amusingplanet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 122 posts

Re: Camouflaged Military Bunkers of Switzerland (2015)

#61

Post by cookieswumchorr »

mhh__ wrote: post #37
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #6

Looks like anyone wanting to invade is in for a rough patch, but maybe modern tech renders these types of things worthless. Considering what a rough time the US (and Russia) has had in Afghanistan, I suspect they'd still be fairly effective.

If you want to defeat the Swiss, and keep in mind what kind of enemy would want to do that, just start carpet bombing where the actual people live. That and they only have about 25 aircraft that could realistically do any good air defense work. The idea that the US would struggle against Switzerland is predicated on them not doing that, because they would've had to found a reason to invade in the first place.

as if they had perfect reason for their previous invasions

Re: Camouflaged Military Bunkers of Switzerland (2015)

#63

Post by cookieswumchorr »

bbojan wrote: post #45
mhh__ wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to defeat the Swiss, and keep in mind what kind of enemy would want to do that, just start carpet bombing where the actual people live. That and they only have about 25 aircraft that could realistically do any good air defense work. The idea that the US would struggle against Switzerland is predicated on them not doing that, because they would've had to found a reason to invade in the first place.

Each building in Switzerland has an underground air raid shelter. So you wouldn't be able to kill too many civilians this way. And once you've destroyed all their aircraft, their SAMs are free to shoot an any target that's flying. The idea is that the USA (or any other power) would struggle to occupy Switzerland, not to obliterate it from the face of the Earth. No country could defend against that, not even the USA.

i am afraid, these times are over with the advance of drone technology, look at the last Karabakh conflict. it's not just the US anymore, but lots of countries can use affordable drones an operate without much human or economic loss. Whereas the side practicing mountain guerrila tactics will have to abandon all civil economic activity, and still lose lives (you cannot stay in shelters all the time)

Re: Camouflaged Military Bunkers of Switzerland (2015)

#64

Post by rscho »

folli wrote: post #46
yellowyacht wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a Swiss, so I don't know what your army strategists are preparing for, but generally a military staff plans for dozens of scenarios, not a single one. The overall trend of conflicts has changed, but the frequency has not. This might surprise you. There have been many conflicts since WW2 and even the end of the CW https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Du... I agree that a bottomless barrel…

I have to agree with this assessment. The opinion provided by /u/Shacklz is unfortunately rather widespread in Switzerland and mostly based on some outdated views on the role of the army ("plausible during the height of the cold war"). As Switzerland's strategic reserve, the army has a broad array of tasks, ranging from support in low threat levels (current example: preparing for the storage and distribution of Covid…

The recent vote to buy expensive planes confirms many swiss and myself included in the opinion that efficient defense capabilities clearly is not the national focus. There were two main points in support of planes:

- policing the skies

- radar tech

As for policing, I'm quite sure many swiss would prefer to have 2-3 high-speed unarmed exploratory planes instead. Wanna shoot down the offender? Just a single missile base in the center of the country would do the trick more efficienty and for cheap. As for radar tech, we could most certainly have a better and cheaper solution adapted to our country by just asking for it at ETHZ or EPFL. We are not Russia or the USA. Our country is minuscule.

Just remembering the recent scandals with the israeli drones and the useless command software that cost tens of millions while we have degrading education, postal and healthcare systems makes me furious. And I'm far from the only one.

Fuck the army.

Re: Camouflaged Military Bunkers of Switzerland (2015)

#65

Post by Xylakant »

gmueckl wrote: post #24
lqet wrote: post #8

Also an interesting fact: The Swiss packed all bridges connecting Switzerland to Germany with tons of explosives until just recently. The wooden bridge [0] connecting Bad Säckingen with Stein contained hundreds of kilo of TNT until 2015. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holzbr%C3%BCcke_Bad_S%C3%A4cki...

West Germany did much the same with all roads and train tracks crossing into East Germany and Czechoslovakia. There were pre-made holes in the roads to blast craters into them. Bridges and tunnels were prepared similarly. It was also rumored that the explosive charges were mounted in place all the time, but I don't believe that part anymore.

> West Germany did much the same with all roads and train tracks crossing into East Germany and Czechoslovakia.

Bridges crossing major rivers as far west as the Rhine river as well.

Re: Camouflaged Military Bunkers of Switzerland (2015)

#66

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

samizdis wrote: post #32
speeder wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This made me remember something about castles... I was wondering, how useful are ancient castles in modern battles? Armchair generals all over the planet kept prattling about them being useless because modern weaponry is awesome and all... Then I went to look properly: 1. Kerak de Chevaliers, yes, that one crusader castle, was occupied during the Syrian war, and gave a hard time to the enemy outside, the castle worke…

> 3. A fortified monastery gave enemies a hard time in WW2 in Italy, I forgot its name now. Monte Cassino? See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino

I'll tell you. This[0] is a hell of a photo.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino#/media...

Re: Camouflaged Military Bunkers of Switzerland (2015)

#67

Post by 082349872349872 »

arethuza wrote: post #44
mhh__ wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

War with whom? 25 C model F-18s aren't going to stop any nation large enough to consider invading the world's bank in the first place.

In David Brin's novel Earth part of the backstory is that WW3 is basically everyone else vs Switzerland and everyone nearly loses (the Swiss almost use cobalt salted doomsday bombs). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_(Brin_novel)

Dirty bombs only lead to mineshaft gaps.

— Why didn't you tell the world, EH?

— It was to be announced at the P/a/r/t/y/ C/o/n/g/r/e/s/s/ Federal Council presser on Monday. As you know, the P/r/e/m/i/e/r/ President loves surprises.

(as far as kleptocrats hiding loot in banks goes, I believe currently the New World, especially states such as Montana, are better tax-havens than we are.)

Re: Camouflaged Military Bunkers of Switzerland (2015)

#68

Post by buran77 »

hutzlibu wrote: post #48
MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A castle gives you a hard time when you only have a gun. If the military has aircraft, missile launchers, and artillery, they'll be flattened before any fighting occurs. Plus it's a pretty easy target.

From Wikipedia about Monte Cassino "On 15 February American bombers dropped 1,400 tons of high explosives, creating widespread damage.[6] The raid failed to achieve its objective, as German paratroopers then occupied the rubble and established excellent defensive positions amid the ruins. "

To be fair that quote is probably mostly about carpet bombing with relatively small bombs. In modern warfare not only are weapons a lot more precise but they also pack a lot more high yield explosives. Also most old fortifications were made to stand hits coming from the ground towards the outer walls, not from above.

The reason almost any above ground strongholds still hold up today is that they're packed with civilians, not because their walls are that strong.

Re: Camouflaged Military Bunkers of Switzerland (2015)

#69

Post by 082349872349872 »

hutzlibu wrote: post #40
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #6

Looks like anyone wanting to invade is in for a rough patch, but maybe modern tech renders these types of things worthless. Considering what a rough time the US (and Russia) has had in Afghanistan, I suspect they'd still be fairly effective.

Even though you can nuke (allmost) anything, fortified bunkers are still (the most) effective fortification. There is lots of massive stone protecting them after all, you have to blast through. Which can be done, but is still a massive effort. Unless you really know (and guard) all the exits and control the surface, how could modern tech render them useless? For primitive caves(targeting Taliban), I believe there was…

Häh? I think the modern way to take swiss bunkers out is to go around them: drive the Franc up to economy-killing levels, and tell the SNB they'll get cut out of the global financial system if they even attempt to defend reasonable exchange rates.

Re: Camouflaged Military Bunkers of Switzerland (2015)

#70

Post by Someone »

gmueckl wrote: post #24
lqet wrote: post #8

Also an interesting fact: The Swiss packed all bridges connecting Switzerland to Germany with tons of explosives until just recently. The wooden bridge [0] connecting Bad Säckingen with Stein contained hundreds of kilo of TNT until 2015. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holzbr%C3%BCcke_Bad_S%C3%A4cki...

West Germany did much the same with all roads and train tracks crossing into East Germany and Czechoslovakia. There were pre-made holes in the roads to blast craters into them. Bridges and tunnels were prepared similarly. It was also rumored that the explosive charges were mounted in place all the time, but I don't believe that part anymore.

Yes, it’s not like the Cold War was armies staring at each other, there were a lot of preparations going on. Some bridges also were over-dimensioned so that heavy tanks could bridge them (and bridges, viaducts and roads are marked as to load-carrying capacity. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Load_Classification)

Also, the original strategic plan for NATO against a soviet attack was defense in depth, so I think all NATO countries in Western Europe prepared for the need to destroy infrastructure. The Netherlands had plans to flood large parts of the country, for example. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IJssel_Line, not just Germany, and not just near the border with Eastern Europe.

And of course, there was a nuclear backup plan in case infrastructure couldn’t be destroyed before the enemy took it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Muni....

Post reply on HN