From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: No Army Needed( was: Swiss military preparedness?)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:58:01 GMT


From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)

baechler@lia.di.epfl.ch (Emmanuel Baechler) writes:

>There are several things to say about this. First of all, it is true that
>our army can be entirely mobilized in 48 hours. This may look impressive,
>and it was for conflicts of the past, but it is unsufficient now. We have
>no permanent alert forces, and modern conflicts can start so quickly, that
>we are no more in a good situation.

>The second important point, is that your report has probably not shown you
>the very poor motivation and morale of swiss soldiers. Most young men are
>not motivated at all by the army, Even worse, there is a lot of anger
>against the army, mainly because of its fundamental lack of respect of 
>people.

>What you have seen is basically the propaganda of the swiss army.

	I realize this may easily stray from the charter, so please watch
your posts.  Being an avid follower of rec.guns and talk.politics.guns,
the Swiss model comes up frequently, but both groups reference the low
homicide rate, not the military aspect of an armed populace.  That is
what I wish to discuss in this subject.

	It has often been said that Switzerland doesn't have an army, it
*is* an army.  The populace being well-armed is also a reason that is
promoted for Japan not invading Hawaii during WWII.  Let's take a look at
this from a military point of view, rather than political.

	For a start, let us assume that 50% of the populace own guns,
and can use them fairly effectively.  Variations are welcome, of course.
This strikes me as a hopeless situation for a war.  As you drive down
the street, some farmer with an old .30-30 shoots at you from the sewer.
On the other hand, you do control the streets.

	So what is the military significance of deer rifles in the hands
of farmers, bankers, and the like?  I would like to think that it would
make the war too costly, but know that I could be merely looking at the
military situation through rose-tinted goggles.

	Insight is appreciated.  Mainly, I'm after a military reason
to fear or respect civilian gun ownership, but I am perfactly willing
to be convinced of the opposite reaction.  Between the US Constitution
and various "Vietnam" movies it seems the military is in deep trouble
if it goes up against an armed populace, and I felt this is the
proper group to address the idea.

	NOTE: I have set no follow-ups.  I shall let our moderator take
care of this.  I wish to keep this off the talk.politic.guns group, as
well as the rec.guns group.  I'm after a military scenario here, not a
civil rights lecture.  Specifically, let's see what a military mind
thinks of the USA gun ownership situation from a military aspect, not
just a 2nd amendment aspect.

	Of course, the moderator has the final decision of what is
posted, but I urge you to keep it military in nature and not totally
political.  I participate in both groups mentioned above, and have
heard what is said there.  What I'm asking, again, is a military view.

	As a self-suggested guideline, let's keep the political side
(which certainly exists) to the *probable* and mention it in passing.
For example, let's say the military could solve all problems through
the use of force.  Fine.  How to go about this?  A quick note of
"This is not legal, but we could get the Iowa NG to shoot those
Kansans" is what I'm after, just as we did on the nuclear arms
thread only a few days ago.

	I'll start.  An armed populace will undermine morale, kill
any popular support, and force soldiers to kill far more than what
the US considers necessary or justified.  Thus, it is a losing
battle no matter who wins so far as the Army is concerned.  Can
you refute this?

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >










Newsgroups: sci.military