Finnish Government cripples Finnish Defense Force with cost cut´s.

[Vladimir]

No armed forces = no country

You need to have something like a 100,000 person defense force, minimum.

[gaelic cowboy]

No armed forces = no country

You need to have something like a 100,000 person defense force, minimum.

Plenty of places have low to no millitary forces, it depends on the strategic enviroment you find yourself in, or in some cases it's a purely mathmatical numbers calculation.(what the point of Monoco having a millitary??)

Ireland has a very small millitary because of low government spending and a need to ensure the the UK does not see a threat on the only land border it has.
The only possible nation who could or would invade Ireland is the UK, except the UK is a nuclearpower so bigger army does not defend Ireland from the UK.

Instead Ireland must balance a small enough millitary to quieten the UK while being big enough to hold the nation from non state actors like the IRA or UVF.

Since Ireland is most at threat by non state actors it is our intelligience and police capabilities that ironically protect us from UK invasion.

Also we have a history of secret treaties and informal agreements with WW2 Allies/NATO to maintain our security in the event say WW3

[Vladimir]

Exceptions don't disprove the rule. I'm not talking about 100,000 spec ops but something that's an internationally recognized sign of self-respect. Again, it's not supposed to be Marine Expeditionary Unit but a government needs to have enough people with guns under its control for when it needs them.

[Sarmatian]

You have to achieve that first.

I think we can safely assume that in the case of hypothetical Russian invasion the outcome is certain, 200,000 or 300,000 Finnish soldiers, 2%,3% or 4% of GDP spending.

Who you? Your dictator?

Dictator or not, facts are facts.

Oh, the fourth Strategic offensive was never planned? Please elaborate further.I am all ears.

You're right - planning wasn't the best word, since you want to take it so literally. There was never intention to perform a full scale offensive in Finland. After the territory lost in 1941 was recovered and a bit broadened, Soviets were happy to put their troops on the defence and fortify the position.

Planning is something that happens constantly in the army. US has a plan for an invasion of Canada but that doesn't mean that US army is going to invade Canada any minute now, or that they are afraid of mighty Canadian military.

You are sure a funny one. Do you have the slightest glue what happened to Baltic countries that accepted the Soviet negotiation terms autumn 1939? What they were asked and what was the outcome? Like i suggested before, please read your history before making such nonsense arguments.

Totally different demands and conditions. What was asked of Baltic states wasn't asked of Finland.

It is easy to make such remark´s. When you dont have a glue what the effect of these cuts will be. I am becoming tired of your partisan position, neglecting to understand anything you are being said, rather just sticking with your argument no matter what.

What do you mean my partisan position? Like taking a rifle and hiding in a heavily wooded area, attacking convoys?

Or are you just itsy-bitsy nervous that I'm not willing to accept your argument? What's the point of the Backroom then, if we're all gonna agree and sing Kumbaya together?

Exceptions don't disprove the rule. I'm not talking about 100,000 spec ops but something that's an internationally recognized sign of self-respect. Again, it's not supposed to be Marine Expeditionary Unit but a government needs to have enough people with guns under its control for when it needs them.

There are literally dozens of armies in the world less than 100,000 strong...

[Kagemusha]

I think we can safely assume that in the case of hypothetical Russian invasion the outcome is certain, 200,000 or 300,000 Finnish soldiers, 2%,3% or 4% of GDP spending.

You still dont get the idea.With what cost?

Dictator or not, facts are facts.

Soviet Union surely had lot to worry from Communist dictatorship.

You're right - planning wasn't the best word, since you want to take it so literally. There was never intention to perform a full scale offensive in Finland. After the territory lost in 1941 was recovered and a bit broadened, Soviets were happy to put their troops on the defence and fortify the position.

Planning is something that happens constantly in the army. US has a plan for an invasion of Canada but that doesn't mean that US army is going to invade Canada any minute now, or that they are afraid of mighty Canadian military.

Oh are you saying that you are familiar with fourth Strategic offensive? Let me first tell you that it was launched after German forces were cleared from the vicinity of Leningrad and the initial goals were Kotka, Lappeenranta, Kouvola. About 100 kilometers further the offensive reached. But surely you knew that already. At the same time Soviet Union attacked with large forces also North of Lake Ladoga just like in Winter war. But i am sure you knew that already as you have travelled from Stalin wanting only some small pieces from Filand back in 1939 into Finland being spared from occupation as they did not help the Germans after Winter War and arriving into the one Soviet Strategic offenisive after 1943 that did not reach its goals, but instead the peace was made in negotiations unlike how the Soviet Union had demanded for unconditional surrender before it.

Totally different demands and conditions. What was asked of Baltic states wasn't asked of Finland.

Please elaborate.What were the terms. Do you know them?

What do you mean my partisan position? Like taking a rifle and hiding in a heavily wooded area, attacking convoys?

Or are you just itsy-bitsy nervous that I'm not willing to accept your argument? What's the point of the Backroom then, if we're all gonna agree and sing Kumbaya together?

I am just growing tired that after i debunk one myth about WWII you throw another one in the air. Maybe just pick a book about it and get into the subject?

Also i explained at my very first reply to you the same thing Panzer already agreed upon. The function of the army is to make the enemy bleed so badly that even totalitarian regimes like Soviet Union understood the gain was not in balance with the sacrifice. You on the other hand seem to think that we live in some total war world.

[Vladimir]

There are literally dozens of armies in the world less than 100,000 strong...

Name them. It will amuse me.

Let me start: Liechtenstein, Monaco, Lesotho, Swaziland...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

102 countries according to wikipedia.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Name them. It will amuse me.

Let me start: Liechtenstein, Monaco, Lesotho, Swaziland...

The Netherlands, I think. Belgium.

[Sarmatian]

You still dont get the idea.With what cost?

I do get it. I just believe that denying a reason for attack is much better guarantee of Finnish independence.

Soviet Union surely had lot to worry from Communist dictatorship.

In this case, I'll pull a Kagemusha and tell you to brush up your history.

Oh are you saying that you are familiar with fourth Strategic offensive? Let me first tell you that it was launched after German forces were cleared from the vicinity of Leningrad and the initial goals were Kotka, Lappeenranta, Kouvola. About 100 kilometers further the offensive reached. But surely you knew that already. At the same time Soviet Union attacked with large forces also North of Lake Ladoga just like in Winter war. But i am sure you knew that already as you have travelled from Stalin wanting only some small pieces from Filand back in 1939 into Finland being spared from occupation as they did not help the Germans after Winter War and arriving into the one Soviet Strategic offenisive after 1943 that did not reach its goals, but instead the peace was made in negotiations unlike how the Soviet Union had demanded for unconditional surrender before it.

I'm not really familiar with the term Fourth Strategic offensive. Are you referring to the Petsamo-Kirkenes offensive? Either way, yes, I maintain that overall goal of any Soviet action in the north was to secure Leningrad and northern lend-lease route, and maybe later to deprive Germany of iron and nickel from Sweden.

Please elaborate.What were the terms. Do you know them?

Finland was asked to surrender territory in the immediate vicinity of Leningrad (thus dismantling a part of Mannerheim line) and a 30 year lease on Hango peninsula and in return it was offered land north of Ladoga.

In the case of the Baltic states, SU wanted (and got) a right to station and move army, ships, planes and artillery on their territory, to use and to build military bases, ports, airfields, ports and other military installations. Under the letter of agreement, Baltic states also promised to help each other and SU in the case of attack and to refrain from being a part of any alliance that might endanger USSR.

I am just growing tired that after i debunk one myth about WWII you throw another one in the air. Maybe just pick a book about it and get into the subject?

Yes, massuh, tenk you massuh...

Also i explained at my very first reply to you the same thing Panzer already agreed upon. The function of the army is to make the enemy bleed so badly that even totalitarian regimes like Soviet Union understood the gain was not in balance with the sacrifice. You on the other hand seem to think that we live in some total war world.

If it comes to Russia invading Finland, it will probably be very close to a total war. In that case you're screwed with or without and army, but, more importantly, I believe it won't come to that in the foreseeable future, in which case, you're fine with or without an army.

Just my opinion, don't hang me for it.

Name them. It will amuse me.

Let me start: Liechtenstein, Monaco, Lesotho, Swaziland...

There's, what, 192 countries in the UN? 102 with armies less than 100,000 makes it more than 50%. Writing 102 countries is a chore, don't make me do it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Netherlands, I think. Belgium.

The UK...

Switzerland...

Norway...

[Papewaio]

100,000 soldiers would have to depend on the able body adult population.

Very few nations have in the event of war been able to send away 10% of their total population.

As such that means any nation of one million or less is not going to have 100,000 battle ready soldiers.

The standing army of China is 2.2 million or 1/50 of their population.

So based on that most nations with less then 5 million people are not going to have 100,000 soldiers/sailors and air men.

[Centurion1]

The UK...

Switzerland...

Norway...

Uh not true. UK army alone is 145k total military is around 225k.

that being said i dont think you need 100000 troops for a respectable armed forces. quality of gear and training is of far greater importance in my eyes.

[Kagemusha]

I do get it. I just believe that denying a reason for attack is much better guarantee of Finnish independence.

Like time and time again i have told you. For independent politics you have to back it up some way. I would love to move Finland into Western Europe, but if you have longest border with Russia of any European country and 7th largest land area of European country with bit over five million people. You need to spend some on your defense.

Maybe you remember that you dont need to look far to witness Russia using armed forces as continuity of their politics. Was it a year a go.When Russia defeated Georgia´s small US trained military with not much of an effort. We cant just put rose coloured glasses on and think nothing could ever happen. Wise man hope´s for the best and prepares for the worst.

Your vision of independence seems to be go along with Russia. Why not ask Russia to protect Finland at the same note with their military?

In this case, I'll pull a Kagemusha and tell you to brush up your history.

Yugoslavia wasnt a communist dictatorship?

I'm not really familiar with the term Fourth Strategic offensive. Are you referring to the Petsamo-Kirkenes offensive? Either way, yes, I maintain that overall goal of any Soviet action in the north was to secure Leningrad and northern lend-lease route, and maybe later to deprive Germany of iron and nickel from Sweden.

That just shows that apparently you rely on wikipedia concerning with information about the affair.

Finland was asked to surrender territory in the immediate vicinity of Leningrad (thus dismantling a part of Mannerheim line) and a 30 year lease on Hango peninsula and in return it was offered land north of Ladoga.

In the case of the Baltic states, SU wanted (and got) a right to station and move army, ships, planes and artillery on their territory, to use and to build military bases, ports, airfields, ports and other military installations. Under the letter of agreement, Baltic states also promised to help each other and SU in the case of attack and to refrain from being a part of any alliance that might endanger USSR.

Yes. Very different terms. Do you know where Hanko peninsula is situated? Right next to Helsinki and into what lead the Baltic states acceptance of the Soviet terms? Their occupation.

If it comes to Russia invading Finland, it will probably be very close to a total war. In that case you're screwed with or without and army, but, more importantly, I believe it won't come to that in the foreseeable future, in which case, you're fine with or without an army.

I just have to agree to disagree with you in this whole affair as you cant set your defense policies in maybe´s. They are for situations when things turn from bad to worse. If Finland would not be a neighbour of Russia. I would agree with no need for much of a military, but the reality is different.

Just my opinion, don't hang me for it.

I just completely disagree with you in this, but it seems neither can convince the other in the issue, so maybe debating this further is useless.

[Kagemusha]

The UK...

Switzerland...

Norway...

You are forgetting the reserves. Switzerland has akin to 200k reserve army with its tiny size. Its not that we have 350k in standing army, but most are in reserve.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Uh not true. UK army alone is 145k total military is around 225k.

that being said i dont think you need 100000 troops for a respectable armed forces. quality of gear and training is of far greater importance in my eyes.

Ten years ago.

By 2018 the British Army will number just 82,000 regulars and 30,000 reserves.

We are, however, an Island and our defensive posture is based on blocakading the channel for six months in order to mobalise our reserves, TA units and produce a Home Guard. That's the real reason the UK needs carrier battlegroups and AA destroyers.

[Tellos Athenaios]

With a few easy mods the Netherlands is an island, too. However our defensive posture relies since about 17th century or so on making sure that none of France, Germany or UK is powerful enough to contemplate invading us. This is why the EU is a good thing. People are too busy to be angry with Paris or Berlin to notice the Dutch and Belgians quietly egging them on.

[Furunculus]

Ten years ago.

By 2018 the British Army will number just 82,000 regulars and 30,000 reserves.

We are, however, an Island and our defensive posture is based on blocakading the channel for six months in order to mobalise our reserves, TA units and produce a Home Guard. That's the real reason the UK needs carrier battlegroups and AA destroyers.

you guys are talking at cross purposes by talking about armies and armed forces as if they were the same thing.

[Husar]

With a few easy mods the Netherlands is an island, too.

Or a submarine country.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Or a submarine country.

Yes. Excellent location for a subterranean lair. -- I mean the cabling and utilities have all been taken care of, and nobody suspects you when you build it here.

[Vladimir]

The Netherlands, I think. Belgium.

Well there you go. We all know what happens to Belgium.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

you guys are talking at cross purposes by talking about armies and armed forces as if they were the same thing.

No we aren't, according to Centurion the "army alone" is 145 thousand.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well there you go. We all know what happens to Belgium.

Excellent food, beer, years without government, and other delights for mankind. What's not to like?

And when you are caught speeding on the highway, you just claim the French speaking cops are probably too thick to read the manual for the camera properly and get acquitted in court. In the USA you'd be lucky if said cops didn't tazer you to death! Ergo, Belgium wins.

[Vladimir]

Excellent food, beer, years without government, and other delights for mankind. What's not to like?

And when you are caught speeding on the highway, you just claim the French speaking cops are probably too thick to read the manual for the camera properly and get acquitted in court. In the USA you'd be lucky if said cops didn't tazer you to death! Ergo, Belgium wins.

You've just been trolled.

That's just a poke in the ribs to those getting stuck on the 100,000 number.

[Furunculus]

No we aren't, according to Centurion the "army alone" is 145 thousand.

people are talking at cross purposes:

You need to have something like a 100,000 person defense force, minimum.

There are literally dozens of armies in the world less than 100,000 strong...

100,000 soldiers would have to depend on the able body adult population.

all i am suggesting is that a little more precision would aid debate immensely. :)

[Vladimir]

No, no. As you can see, we're refining the argument. The next progression is 100,000 guns. Bullets then follow the guns.

[Husar]

That's a good direction because I remember certain countries ran out of laser guided bombs during the Libya bombings...

[Papewaio]

No, no. As you can see, we're refining the argument. The next progression is 100,000 guns. Bullets then follow the guns.

I thought guns fired shells and rifles fired bullets.

[Vladimir]

I thought guns fired shells and rifles fired bullets.

[Sarmatian]

I was once fired by my boss, so there's no rule there...

[Husar]

If you had to discard your work clothing on the way out, wouldn't that make you some kind of sabot shell?
Especially if your boss was the son of a gun...