We did pretty well in the 2nd World War against a massive Red army. And the Russians haven’t been able to beat the Chechnyan resistance either.

Yes, I think forcing is good here – even though I find my self to be quite liberal in a Finnish scale – because it just happens to be a fact of life that wars do occur and people have to live with it. I think the more equally the concequenses are distributed the better. Look at US congress or UK for that matter. There aren’t too many people making decicions that would really be affected by them in *any* way.

In Finland all political leaders have gone to the army or at least thought about related things *on a personal level*. They would understand how serious going to war would be and thus will use all politics available to not use the military both in Finland and in international politics. You can’t say the same about W. or Blair.

I think that latest after you’ve had to think that *you* could be the one killed in a military operation you understand (at least a bit) that all people killed in military operations could be “you”, ie. just anybody with normal life and family and so on. Since we live in a democratic society I think that it is good that also the “stupid masses” have to think about this – they are the ones voting, after all.

And also, this all, I think, causes the conscription also to make the *defence* forces of Finland actually more “pacifistic” than a professional army would be. It’s not perfect but no killing machine is.

All wars are horrible and most of them pretty useless, but some are inevitable. As a nation you can’t run by hiding your head in the Bush. Maybe I could move abroad before a crisis but my cousins might not.

On the question of the length of the civil service I see no reason for it to be longer than normal military service. I think it should be the same length as the shortest normal military service or at the most as long as the longest.

Aijoovai
Second lieutenant (res.)

Those structures were useless to begin with, as they did not maintain an “international” balance of power, and certainly had nothing to do with the rule of law.

Doctrines such as pre-emptive strikes are actually quite useful in redefining the balance of power as it manifests itself in the real world. Flimsy, useless “international” treaties, – especially ones that forbid genocide, but do nothing to stop them – tend to distort power balances, and thus make the world a more dangerous place.

Pää saattaa täyttyä keltaisella nesteellä, niinkuin nyt katsoo tätä Philin ‘Ammutaan lonkalta’ raportointia asioista joista myöhemmin huomaa että asiassa oliko enemmän kuin musta ja valkoinen.

Say 150,000+ euros for a pilot.
…..60,000+ euros for a foot soldier.

The salaries will have to be high enough to attract the required number of recruits. What happens if being a soldier ends up being some of the highes paid jobs in Finland? Why shouldn’t these be the highest paid jobs in Finland? After all, you are agreeing to risk your life for others.

It’s not the opera that’s worst. Try the covering of Olympic stadium while kicking mental patient to trams of Helsinki. Bloody sports.

Amnesty talks much about how the alternative service is too long. I think there’s even been some discussion in Finland about shortening the length of it, so we could get rid of Amnesty, at least concerning the conscription.
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/fin-summary-eng

In Finnish: “Why Amnesty adopts Finnish conscientious objectors as prisoners of conscience?”
“Amnesty does not take a stand on conscription but… alternative service too long… bla bla… international standards…”
http://www.amnesty.fi/history/ukk.htm#eighth

Amnesty is giving a picture, like if the alternative service would be shorter, there would be no problem!

But, what is the definition for a ‘prisoner of conscience’:
“…a person who has been imprisoned… because of his/her political beliefs… religious beliefs… sex… national background… or other position…”
http://www.amnesty.fi/history/mielipidevanki.htm

Clearly one could still be a prisoner of conscience for Amnesty, even if the alternative service was just 6 months long. It would still be imprisonment because of his sex (conscription only for men), imprisonment because of his political beliefs, imprisonment because of his religious beliefs (not a Jehova’s Witness), maybe imprisonment because of his background (not from Åland)…

But Wikipedia doesn’t list imprisonment because of sex as a reason at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_conscience

I couldn’t find information about this from the Amnesty International’s English site.

I guess I’ll have to ask Amnesty, are they really supporting human rights and equality! Or do they just want the alternative service to be shortened a few months (which would still be slavery), so their hippie friends could go to the service.

Yes, the generals spoke all through the 70′s and 80′s that the axiom of the finnish doctrine was that we are not a prime target for a nuclear strike. On the same time they were building fiber optic communications networks and command centers deep down into the rock.

I have heard we were freeriding under the U.S nuclear umbrella at the time, but if the memoirs of one U.S Strategic Air Command colonel are accurate, we were under the edge with all the water dropping on us, as he remembers being very close to take off for a target in Finland with the big one.

The russians were nice enough not to nuke Kabul or Grozhnyi. In Finland’s case they might end up having their share of the radioactive fallout. Besides, the generals like to go to history as great strategists and tacticians, not as somebody, who hit the chessboard with a sledgehammer.

NATO might be a one solution for the security equation. Probably they will sneak the membership through sooner or later. What I suspect, is that the russian autocrat of the future just might call the cards of the west and notice that the finns are for the sale, like usually.

It’s interesting how the Defence Forces frequently mention the importance of credibility in defence, but Finland’s only defence for nuclear strike seems to be ‘a trust’ that the Ruskies are nice enough not to nuke us. Since when war is about being nice to one another? The Finnish Army really isn’t match for Russian Army. I can agree with Phil on the fact that if Russia wants to attack us, we’re fucked. I would sleep more restfully if we’d join NATO.