back
96 comments
> It promises the country’s largest military expansion for 70 years

In the 1960s Sweden was months from an atomic bomb and had pretty solid plans for at least 2 legs of a nuclear triad. This may be the largest expansion by expenditure but it’s a relatively small change in posture.

For context, Sweden's defense budget (USD 5.8b) is smaller than the NYPD's budget (USD 6.0b) [1].

That's kind of amazing when you think about it. With it's budget, Sweden is able to fund an indigenous fighter program [2].

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/20/nyregion/defu...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

Israel’s defense budget is only 20B (including US aid), US defense spending is just abnormally high.
Well Saab’s fighters are also probably net profitable through exports
Yeah, the wording is a bit sensationalist. The expansion has never been this quick, but we spent more than 3% of GDP in the 70s.

https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/om-forsvarsmakten/darfor-fi...

This 40% increase only leads up to a 1.5% GDP being used on defense, well under many other countries
Why is military spending always defined as relative to GDP and not to total tax income, where the actual money is coming from?
Taxation policy can be changed.

As a strategic matter, during wartime, the economic output of the entire country can be redirected to war efforts.

Relative economic output of different forces is a major determining factor in war outcomes.

The percentage of GDP during peace-time serves as an indicator of readiness for war.

It is worth noting that Sweden staved off the USSR during the cold war with this very cleverly designed tank: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSNNNMYmTKQ

Why is military spending always defined as relative to GDP and not to total tax income, where the actual money is coming from?

Because that’s how NATO defines it, such that each member makes a proportional contribution. It would be silly to expect say Estonia to match Germany in real terms, but it’s reasonable to expect Germany to match say Poland in relative terms.

(Yes I know Sweden is not a NATO member but most European countries are so it makes sense to compare like with like)

Because there is no such thing as “actual money” in countries that have fiat currency. So it wouldn’t actually make any sense to do that.
For a developed nation with a big gdp and no major conflicts on their doorstep, that is big.
It's interesting to see all these comments about finally the Europeans are defending themselves and comparisons to the US. The US has used their forces pretty much exclusively for offensive means in the last decades. Even if the US would be reducing to their capabilities to only defend themselves and their allies they could likely cut military spending in half (this has become a bit more complex because how the US is using its military has caused China to massively expand their spending as well), but that would mean they could not enforce their economic interests everywhere in the world.
This is what always gets me about the "NATO doesn't pay their fair share" debate.

First of all, they're not talking about NATO's budget, they are talking about each countries share of defense spending compared to the total defense spending of all NATO countries.

But that's kind of pointless, because NATO was for defending Europe from the Soviet Union. While the US has 800 military bases and had 2 land wars at once for basically 15 years. On top of the entire Navy. Of course it's defense spending is going to be higher.

Every American seems to forget that if they want a better balance in defense spending within NATO that the US could also lower its spending, in stead of Europe raising it.

> The US has used their forces pretty much exclusively for offensive means in the last decades.

You may have that impression from news articles, but in reality it doesn't make any sense. The US military has operations in the Middle East, but that involves virtually none of their ships, planes, bases, silos or troops.

The primary purpose of the US military is to continue the post-WW2 Marshall Plan, which is maintaining global peace. Notice how there hasn't been any major wars since 1945? That's what American taxpayers paid for.

The Marshall plan was largely an economic stimulus package not a military strategy. Regarding military strategy the current US military policy objectives (wikipedia) are: to (1) assure allies and friends; (2) dissuade future military competition, (3) deter threats and coercion against U.S. interests, and (4) if deterrence fails, decisively defeat any adversary.

Now you could argue that these objectives are meant ensure global piece, but then you need to show that. In particular do you need to show how US starting several wars (including the ones that were not called wars for political reasons), largely based on economic reasons, does maintain global peace.

over 1M people died in vietnam, how does that not count as a major war ? Thats more than the civil war

Or do only WW level fuckups count ?

ftfy: "there hasn't been any major wars since 1945 in countries where we care about death toll."
https://archive.vn/OY77V
For context, a case originally from 2013: https://www.businessinsider.com/nato-report-russia-sweden-nu...
Bring back the S-Tank! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_103
It's very surprising and in my opinion very positive that they managed to bring conscription back in 2017. I was one of the last few age groups to go through mandatory service in Germany before they abolished it, and since then it seems like the army has huge problems getting people both in sufficient quantity and quality, not to mention it also serves an important domestic function of keeping civilian oversight in the military.
Instead of forcing people to do something (through conscription), it's ideal to make people want to do it voluntarily (through providing good pay, conditions and maybe generous matching of retirement contributions etc)
Finnish person here. Disagree, as you end up with a much smaller army at a higher maintenance cost.

From a pure defense perspective, nothing beats a conscription system in efficiency. Here in Finland (population about 5,5 million) we have a reserve army of 900,000 people. With a pure salary army, it could be maybe 2-5% of that.

Cons: takes 6-12 months away from your life. But my and virtually anyone I know has the opinion is that it is also a very valuable life experience and I carry many lifelong friends from that time period.

I think the problem is it becomes a way to bribe/exploit poorer people.

I've always liked the idea of mandatory civil service; one option being the military. Having family in the military and being exposed elsewhere, it's interesting to get a closer view of the parts of government we pay for, like missile silos or aircraft carriers, but often put into a black box. I would hope it would make people more civically aware and engaged. I've been curious about contributing to something like 18F or US Digital Service. Do any countries do this?

I don't think you understand the situation. Sweden has a population of 10M. Finland, next to Russia, 5M. Russia - 150M. The power imbalance is so large that the only way of making a credible defence strategy is by having the capability to mobilize a significant portion of the population for professional quality defence.

This is simply not feasible without a conscription.

No, I did not like my conscription (Finland) two decades ago - but I completely understand why it's necessary.

other replies have pointed to costs but I just want to reiterate the last point that in our particular German case the principle behind it is the "Staatsbürger in Uniform" (citizen in uniform), the idea is to kind of precisely get some people into the military who wouldn't naturally want to go there, because those are the people who can provide crucial oversight over military processes, and prevent the miltary from being purely professional.

This is because serving in the military is a civic duty, not just a sort of commercial service. The military is not just supposed to be a hired group of fighters.

Yeah? You sure about that? What you will end up with is more propaganda, war glorification, and more targeting of teenagers.
IMHO Army recruitment age youngster haven't developed enough to think this deeply. It is a journey some might like only after joining in so there should be exit path available to those who don't like it.

Secondly money and conditions can't be universal drivers.

On a side note I feel trend of letting youngster do whatever they want even during school years is counter productive. For example children who misbehave even once in a while with teachers and sometimes parents even are taken for psyche evaluation immediately. IMHO children does need direction and guidance until they understand the consequences of their choices.

I disagree. If everyone does it, it will more closely represent the general population.

Those that would volunteer are not necessarily the ones you would want.

There are always going to be a social contract, things you have to do, like paying taxes. I would argue that defending the country is a reasonable thing to include in that social contract.

Very strange that Russians did not return to the Piss&Løve-tactics of 1970s. It worked very well, as leftist peace-movement managed to erode the defence of almost every European country. Sweden was the prime target. The Swedish "Nuclear-Free North"-initiative for example meant literally that only Russians can have Nukular Weapons in the North.
It's worth noting that the intended size of the Swedish military is still tiny, compared to U.S. standards. 72 artillery pieces is what they're aiming for, and three mechanized brigades. The U.S. deploys a force of that size as a tripwire.
It's not meaningful to compare military sizes to US standards. America is a clear outlier.
But nordic countries defend each other. You should check combined force.

How strong is army of Alabama? Comparison between Sweden and USA is not very fair.

Yes, and the EU would certainly not sit by. I could've gone into depth about how the Russian army is only able to support maybe 120,000 troops in the field today, but thought it would be pedantic.
It is wonderful that someone other than the USA is footing the bill for Europe’s defense. If I was a European I wouldn’t count on the USA to help in future conflicts.

EDIT: The downvotes are perplexing. Why would a European want the whims of the USA to be their only protection? Defend yourselves!

Defense is much cheaper than offense.

The fact that other countries appear to spend less on defense does not mean that they are unprepared.

Americans spend a lot of money on a corrupt pharmaceutical industries, and they have bad healthcare.

Americans spend a lot of money on a corrupt education systems, and have stupid people.

Americans spend a lot of money on a corrupt war industry, and they have a lot of rusting 1950s tanks, planes, and missiles.

Without being tested, who knows if anyone actually has good defense?

It requires thinking and testing, not mindlessly throwing money at charlatans.

Defense is much cheaper than offense.

I don’t think that’s true and there are plenty of counterexamples e.g what did Saddam spend on Scuds vs what the US spent on Patriot?

Americans will not spend their tax dollars on defending Europe, so Europeans should fund their own defense or prepare for the consequences.
Let's assume the Europeans are defending themselves against Russia (I mean who else would we talk about). Russian military spending is $65 billion compared to European $289 billion, so even at low percentages of GDP the Europeans are out spending the Russians by a factor 4 (let's assume military capability is related to spending), so clearly the Europeans are financing their own defence against Russia and don't rely on the US for their defence. In fact estimated Chinese military spending is $285 billion, so Europe could defend itself against China as well (possibly even a China/Russia alliance, offinsive wars are much more expensive than defensive). So whom is the US defending the Europeans from? The only force that (based on military spending) would be a credible threat is actually the US themselves. The whole argument that the US is paying for European defence is bogus.
That's an interesting point. Europe is trying to be as peaceful as possible but yet it still has a relatively large defense budget. It's just that whatever the US is doing is overshadowing that large budget.
Russian military spending is $65 billion compared to European $289 billion, so even at low percentages of GDP the Europeans are out spending the Russians by a factor 4

The Russians get a lot more for every dollar or euro they spend because their stuff costs a lot less in local prices. So it’s not a meaningful comparison. Western countries get very poor value for money from their defence budgets in Russian terms. They are easily 10x more efficient than any NATO country.

Europeans might spend much more than Russia, but without external involvement, I think Russia would probably win.

Russia - about 6000 nukes, 12000 tanks, 4000 military aircraft, 600 warships, 3m soldiers

Europe - about 500 nukes, 8000 tanks, 2500 military aircraft, 550 warships, 1.5m soldiers

Besides the numbers, the Russians are just better prepared and don't have to coordinate a dozen different forces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...

france,germany and uk are all at about the same amount spent on military as russia.

Sure, sweden alone couldn't hold back the russians, but it's not like we need america, a quarter of the union would do it.