Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Depository for off topic / political posts (NO brexit related posts please)

Malibuflyer wrote:

So in Sweden the armed forces themself (in person of this Supreme Commander) decide upon declaring war or intervening in. an international conflict?

No. Did I say that? Declaring war is a diplomatic action, not a military one. Not even the US president can declare war without the approval of Congress.

Deciding on intervention in an international conflict is, AFAIK, a parliamentary decision in Sweden.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

You didn’t say that, but you did say the Defence Minister does not have power over the military – which seems unusual.

The usual modern setup is that the professional head of the armed services (i.e. the highest ranking uniformed officer, in the UK a post known as CDS – Chief of the Defence Staff – who may be Army, RAF or RN) reports directly to the government minister responsible for defence. We have further complications in that the Queen is technically the Commander-in-Chief (but in practice is not involved at all) and also that the CDS actually reports to the Defence Minister via a committee of which they are both members (work that one out!)

Are you saying that in Sweden the professional head of the armed services takes instructions only from parliament, and thus the military cannot act at all without a vote?

EGLM & EGTN

Sweden and Switzerland are both “neutral” so the chances of either initiating military action is zero.

And the changes of either carrying out military action in self defence is also zero because any enemy big enough to present a threat will be so much stronger that it would be futile to defend yourself. Geographically, it is obvious that the enemy will be right next door, almost next door, or it will be Russia. So, instead, you maintain your nominal neutrality in a non military manner, by providing the said enemy with precision manufacturing facilities, and confidential banking and bank vault facilities, respectively

Nowadays you would hand out free ski passes and rental vouchers

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Sweden is rearming and will soon send troops to help us in Mali. They are by far not the most passive country in terms of defence.

LFOU, France

Graham wrote:

Are you saying that in Sweden the professional head of the armed services takes instructions only from parliament, and thus the military cannot act at all without a vote?

No, that’s not what I’m saying. (S)he takes instructions from the cabinet. My point is that the highest individual person in the chain of command is the professional head of the armed services.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 17 Jan 19:46
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

“An EU army, on the other side, that can only act after 27 heads of state have agreed on what to do would only be very inadequately described as “lame duck”.”
I suspect if action for defence was needed, they’d agree.
It would stop military action for “moral” reasons, which seems to have made things worse for the civilians wherever it’s been done.
And, historical action is now as imperialism.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

Airborne_Again wrote:

The Swedish Supreme Commander is a general

Does the Swedish military report (allegiance) to the Swedish Monarch/Crown?

The UK military forces theoretically report (allegiance) to the monarch/crown, not to the government of the day.
I believe the Danish Military – Royal relationship is the same.

Regards, SD..

Maoraigh wrote:

I suspect if action for defence was needed, they’d agree.

The way Europe currently works I’m actually not sure about that. We have no shared “European spirit” in the broader population – therefore if Cyprus gets attacked by Turkey (not very realistic but perhaps one of the less unrealistic scenarios) we would still have discussions on why Swedish or Irish or Portugese soldiers should die defending this small Island.
Btw.: The recent events around Oil exploration have given a glimpse on this: The European council will discuss long enough if it is really an attack so that the attacker captures the entire island – than they would discuss if it still makes sense to send troops at all…

Germany

skydriller wrote:

Does the Swedish military report (allegiance) to the Swedish Monarch/Crown?

No. The Crown lost all (formal) power with the 1974 constitution. It is now a purely ceremonial position. The king/queen does have the military rank of full general, but that doesn’t mean (s)he is even theoretically in the chain of command.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Malibuflyer wrote:

The recent events around Oil exploration have given a glimpse on this: The European council will discuss long enough if it is really an attack so that the attacker captures the entire island – than they would discuss if it still makes sense to send troops at all…

This must be something I’ve missed. What are you referring to?

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top