<doc.id=0227.a2>
<title> The necessity of a Swedish national defence </title>
In this essay I will be discussing the need for an active Swedish national defence. I'm fully aware of the complexity of this area and therefore I will focus on a couple of the main points in this debate, more specifically those for and against further cuts in the national defence budget. I have selected three arguments against an expensive national defence and I will try to prove them wrong by presenting some essential counter-arguments. The arguments I'm going to deal with are: The idea that international relations today are so good that war is unthinkable, the idea that national defence is not cost-effective and finally the proposed solution to these problems: the idea of rebuilding a defence force when necessary.

	 The possibly most important argument against a Swedish national defence is that the political situation abroad and our relationship to foreign powers prevent the eventuality of war, at least in the foreseeable future. Sweden has not been directly involved in a war for a couple of centuries and the possibility of such an event is considered very remote. What has been forgotten in this argument is that war is very difficult to predict. In the modern world, the intentions of other nations are not always clear and they can change from friendly to hostile in no time. Today's international relations are not very stable, especially not after the end of the Cold War. An alert nation shouldn't be tricked into the "post-war-calm" mentality Sweden has today.

	 After World War One, it was argued all over Europe that no more wars could follow after such a horrendous one. Most nations ignored to maintain a capable defence force and the results of this ignorance are well known today. Another important point is that war has a tendency to affect larger geographical areas today than before, mainly because of the increased capacity of mass-destruction weapons. Surely, Sweden can't possibly stay out of a conflict between, for example the U.S. and Russia, because such a conflict will be world-wide.

	 Another argument that has gained much in influence these days is that the national defence is a state expense that isn't cost-effective. A lot of money is spent each year on training, weapon-systems and maintenance but society doesn't benefit from these activities and purchases. Indeed, it is hard to point out exactly what we are protecting ourselves from, if it is necessary and why it should be so expensive. I'd like to compare this spending to the one you do on your insurance every year. You wouldn't even dream of not paying to protect yourself from robberies, accidents or other minor disasters, so why shouldn't the nation protect itself from the most devastating disaster of all - war? I'm sure you'll agree that a couple of millions each year is a low sum to pay considering what you are preventing; war often comes just as suddenly and unpredictably as a fire or a car-accident.

	 The final argument I'd like to discuss isn't actually an argument, but more a practical solution to today's defence-budget problems that has been influenced by the anti-defence arguments mentioned above. Today large parts of the defence forces are cut down permanently, a considerable part of those remaining are "put to sleep" and are not to be revitalised until it is necessary, that is in case of a war being imminent. Can you do this to a national defence force and still maintain the effectiveness that has been achieved in years of training and improvement? I'd say no, you can't. First of all, it takes several years to create a functioning army unit. A brigade (a unit of about 5,000 men), for example, takes some seven years to train. It is not very often that you can start training for a war several years ahead, mainly because you can't predict it. It would also take several years for the industry to adjust and build all the equipment necessary that we don't build today. This "solution" to the problems of the national defence today seems to me nothing but a desperate and irresponsible way to increase national funds.

	 As a conclusion I'd like to point out that most of the arguments against a Swedish national defence are not very concerned with the actual safety of the nation, they seem to be more concerned about how much money can be saved by not investing in a national defence. It is very sad to see that the government of today makes hasty decisions in order to increase funds, decisions which we may have to regret in the future.
</doc>