From: mtf@saha.hut.fi (dalens ande)
Subject: Re: Finnish Defense
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:29:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.120748.13370@kth.se> bolin@plafys.plasma.kth.se writes:

>Unfortunately you make some very common (Swedish) mistakes. First, you think
>that our resources are no good, while the Soviet (Russian) resources are top
>class. Considering what we have seen from Afganistan and Eastern Europe,
>especially former East Germany, it is more likely the other way around. The
>technical standard of much of the Soviet equipment is very low. Many of the
>Soviet missiles are barely able to get within 1-2 km from their target. It is
>also well known that a well-prepared defence is much easier to undertake than 
>an attack. 

 Although I'm no military expert, I can't really agree with this. The soviet
military (along with space research) was *the* pride of ex-Soviet Union, and
it was top class by any standards. The Soviet troops weren't very motivated in
Afghanistan, but things could be different. A charismatic leader could use the
current confusion and social problems and focus peoples thoughts on nationa-
lism and panslavism, and have the most motivated army in the world. The
know-how and high-tech are still there, at least for the most part.

 Also, having observed the finnish army from a grass-root level for the past
nine months (yea, I'm in the army *sigh*), I haven't become very convinced
of the effeciency of the finnish army... If the russians would attack here,
finns would probably be very motivated to fight back (the gallups show this,
most people I know who are doing the armed service would, according to their 
own words at least, flee to Surinam :-), but the level of technical skill
and competence is *not* high, and at the moment most people there aren't 
motivated at all. 

>"A few hundred MIGs" would propably have a lot of trouble dealing with
>60 Finnish Hornets.
 
 Well, I used the "few hundred" as a symbolic expression... I'm sure they
could send *enough* MIGs to gain complete control of finnish air space 
(which of course would be disastrous for Finland) if they wanted to.

>Your second mistake is to believe that Finland could put up an effective
>guerilla resistance once the major cities are lost, and the goverment has 
>given in. Unfortunately that doesn't work in an industrialized country, where
>the occupants "have access" to the civilians. The guerillas shoot 10 soldiers,
>and the soldiers rape and shoot 100 civilians. 

 Yes, you're probably right. My only defense is that with guerilla war one
could perhaps lenghten the situation of war and thus the international pres-
sure on the attacker would be more effective. Granted, history has shown
that international pressure isn't much to count on, but the other alternative
(i.e the current organized military) doesn't seem very appealing either.
A short fight, may be a week or two, huge losses - and that's it. The situa-
tion would be "normalized" quickly. 

>Now, I am not naive enough to say that the Finns would have been (or will
>be) able to stop the Soviet Union (or a future strong Russia) from occupuing
>Finland, if they decided on a *major* attack. However, I am sure organized
>military defence is a small country's only effective means of protecting it's
>citizens, and I think that during a more realistic situation where Finland
>wasn't *the* major target for Russian aggression, the Finnish armed forces 
>would be able to stand up fairly well against the attackers.

 I don't think it's realistic to expect Russia to send an army that is small
enough for us to cope with. Even so Finland needn't be *the* target, a frac-
tion of the russian forces will do. 

>Btw, Finland is tying it's security policy closer to the only stable power 
>left right now. If that goes any further, what Finland needs is a defence 
>capable of defending the country until assistance arrives, not guerillas 
>doing more harm to their own civilians than to the enemy.

 We're probably drifting towards military alliance with the WEU or NATO,
and may be that is the best thing for us to do (even better than training
guerillas :-). Having good relations with the eastern neighbour is of course 
the best guarantee of safety for us, but it just could happen so that someone 
there, who doesn't care much for having good relations with us, might rise 
in power. It does worry me, and there has been signs of such a possibility.
--
Antti Lahelma   |	      mtf@saha.hut.fi 	           |   GNOTHI SEAUTON 
Lehtotie 3     -O-	      stel@purkki.apu.fi          -*-  ====== ======= 
00630 HELSINKI  | <<Jumalat ovat pakanoille suosiollisia>> |    TUNNE ITSESI