[HN Gopher] Nordic neighbours release new advice on surviving war
___________________________________________________________________
Nordic neighbours release new advice on surviving war
Author : concerto
Score : 75 points
Date : 2024-11-18 16:19 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.co.uk)
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Related:
|
| _Sweden 's 'Doomsday Prep for Dummies' guide hits mailboxes
| today_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42173777 - Nov 2024
| hyggetrold wrote:
| In retrospect, it seems like it was a bad idea for Western
| countries to assume that things were going to remain peaceful
| after the fall of the USSR. Glad to see the threat of war being
| taken seriously.
| Y-bar wrote:
| Unfortunately it not "just" about war now. The changing climate
| has also significantly increased the risk for major disruptions
| on social services such as fresh water supply, electricity,
| sanitation, and roads/track. We now also need to add those to
| the list of real risks to prepare for.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| Niall Ferguson recently gave a speech,
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocYvwiSYDTA (Address to the
| 2024 CIS Consilium on the Gold Coast),
|
| in which he says that WWIII may be a more urgent risk. It's a
| race.
| Y-bar wrote:
| This reminds me of Department of Defense Climate Risk
| Analysis from three years ago where they remind us that
| there will be increased international conflicts due to the
| effects of climate change:
|
| https://media.defense.gov/2021/Oct/21/2002877353/-1/-1/0/DO
| D... (1.5 MB PDF)
| mdp2021 wrote:
| Interesting (and very plain, understandable,
| commonsensical) - but of course some running conflicts
| are not not strongly related to climate change.
|
| Of course, when Niall Ferguson spoke, it looked at the
| contingency: he sees a possibility of catastrophic
| consequences that may come much earlier than the climatic
| "Armageddon". (Well, in some news peices today they spoke
| about "before Xmas"... It makes the order of events very
| definite.)
| PittleyDunkin wrote:
| Why would you say that when we have NATO?
| llamaimperative wrote:
| What "assumption" are you talking about? There has been
| continuous work (even if some of it mistaken) to reduce the
| chances of that happening.
|
| Definitely some elements of some western countries are guilty
| of what you're alleging, but I don't think enough to justify
| saying the countries themselves did.
| EasyMark wrote:
| I never understood why the west didn't help more with the
| legitimate government forces in Russia, even if it meant more
| spies and what not. It was clearly crumbling and that's when
| stuff like crime and corruption breed, even more so than in the
| old USSR, but we just sat back and patted ourselves on the back
| instead of seeking out allies in Russia.
| petesergeant wrote:
| Exceptionally well-armed NATO + JEF members, and Finland well
| within distance to use conventional artillery to turn St
| Petersburg to rubble. This is a public-awareness and support-
| building exercise rather than a real concern. This is like the
| RAF frequently issuing press-releases about intercepting Russian
| jets.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| > _conventional artillery to turn St Petersburg to rubble_
|
| Well, let's really hope not. (Let us hope that nothing of worth
| is ever destroyed, and let us not speak about destruction of
| universal goods lightly.)
|
| Edit: let us be even more clear (possibly in light of the
| dismissing feelers who just passed by). If you are into
| destruction of the cultural heritage, _you_ are the enemy.
| Complexities just come later.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| Putin is hoping and taking action to ensure otherwise.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| That reinforces my point instead of changing it.
|
| Destruction of the Worth = bad.
|
| I.e. it is part of what should be fought.
| soco wrote:
| Are human lives worthwhile to be destroyed? Are they not
| universal enough? Because I don't see much respect for those
| around the world... starting, but not ending there, with the
| russian soldiers themselves.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| Some will be of the opinion that what may not respect
| cultural heritage may not have the same worth.
|
| Sorry.
|
| Edit: I will express it again, and to stress the point:
| some things are the fruit of the drive towards
| construction. Some other things may be destroyers. So, it
| all depends. No, we will not attribute worth to destroyers.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Uh..
|
| If we turn St Petersburg into rubble, I doubt anyone will be
| worrying about a few trifling conventional weapons. NATO and
| Russia go at it, and we're all just sitting around next month
| waiting for the Chinese, Brazilians, Indians and South Africans
| to sort out who is responsible for which relief efforts.
|
| Actually, now I think about it, that quad will probably be far
| more concerned with determining the disposition of the
| remaining NATO/Russian warheads. So even relief efforts might
| be impacted by their more pressing concerns.
|
| In any case, the world would just be a mess for a good long
| while.
| petesergeant wrote:
| > If we turn St Petersburg into rubble, I doubt anyone will
| be worrying about a few trifling conventional weapons
|
| Yes, exactly, that's why this isn't going to happen.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| NATO and Russia go at it and everyone is screwed, there will
| be no winners, nobody on the sidelines, no picking through
| the spoils.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Despite what Hollywood would have you believe, there would
| be nations that survive a NATO/Russia war. Namely, any
| nation in the Southern Hemisphere not called Australia or
| New Zealand. Mother Nature's winds and Father Physic's half
| lives combine to give unaligned southern hemisphere nations
| the break of a lifetime. (Or of a species' lifetime I
| guess?)
|
| All that said, you are absolutely right about "spoils". No
| one is gonna be thinking about "spoils". Probably top of
| everyone's list of questions will be, "How many warheads
| are left? And what remnants of NATO or Russia control
| them?"
|
| We're talking about two groups who would have conclusively
| shown they are perfectly willing to use their nuclear
| arsenals to achieve their goals. That, combined with the
| fact that their goals would become a whole lot less lofty
| overnight makes me think the world would become a very
| precarious place.
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| why would Australia get hit? no where near Russia, not in
| NATO, no nukes, and too small of a military to mount a
| serious offensive
|
| for that matter they're not going to be able to supply
| much relief effort, either. hopefully they'll pick a side
| - India or China - and ride out the eventual hegemonic
| war between those 2.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| I'm assuming our Navy would harbor there when other ports
| were gone.
|
| Maybe the Australians wouldn't allow that?
|
| I guess I always assumed they would. Kind of like North
| Korea with Russian warships. I don't think we could take
| the chance that the Russian naval assets harbored in N
| Korea were harmless. Likewise, I'm assuming Russia
| wouldn't be able to make the assumption that American
| warships harbored in Australia were harmless.
|
| I don't know? Maybe everyone's naval ships just surrender
| or something? I doubt it though. Your nation being
| destroyed is, in my mind, _more_ reason to fight in those
| circumstances, not less.
| 4bpp wrote:
| Australia did contribute troops to most US-led military
| expeditions of the past century. Is it that unlikely that
| in the event of complete nuclear devastation of the
| Northern Hemisphere, they would be happy to tip the
| scales in favour of their allies among the survivors by
| dispatching a few tens of thousands of troops to mop up
| what is left of the Russian side, which would only be up
| against a few disorganised pockets of resistance with no
| supply chain to speak of?
|
| Also, there is a chance that in the event of a full-blown
| nuclear exchange Russian leadership would see the
| showdown as fundamentally civilisational, and seek to
| take Australia down simply because it is unambiguously an
| outpost of Anglo-American culture.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Wars are usually like this and yet, they happen. It's not
| so unlikely.
| jnurmine wrote:
| Well, yes, but it is not some PR-influenced look good and like
| us on Facebook -thing for any of the Nordic nations.
|
| It's about being prepared for all kinds of eventualities,
| whatever they might be.
|
| For example, last year and early this year heavy winds fell
| trees on electric lines both in Finland and Sweden, cutting off
| electricity locally for many days. There was a pandemic not too
| long ago. Waterworks problems have happened in the past in
| Finland and also happened this year in Sweden. DDoSing happens
| here and there, it can impact banks and such.
|
| In addition, grayzone/hybrid operations i.e. all kinds of
| stupid bullying are constantly conducted: for example, earlier
| today a submarine cable between Germany and Finland (C-Lion1)
| was cut, and later today another submarine cable between
| Lithuania and Sweden was cut as well. Such cables don't just
| snap by themselves.
|
| Like the Finnish page says: "Prepared people cope better".
|
| https://www.suomi.fi/guides/preparedness
|
| https://www.msb.se/en/advice-for-individuals/the-brochure-in...
| euroderf wrote:
| No need for artillery. Drop a big enough A-bomb in the right
| place in the Gulf of Finland, and it does nil in most of the
| gulf but it does send a tsunami straight up to St Petersburg.
| Thus the rationale for that causeway/seawall they built for the
| A118 thru Kronstadt.
| sdwr wrote:
| That's what a functional government looks like. High-information,
| low-controversy, consolidating citizens around a shared truth.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Sure, but which is the cause, and which the effect?
|
| Edit: Huh, a totally legitimate question that points directly
| at the underlying cause, and downvoted to the limit. Does it
| hurt that much to admit that people are getting exactly the
| government they want?
| joe_the_user wrote:
| A pamphlet talking about "in case of war..." seems like it is
| making war itself more likely. "Shared truth" seems like it's
| reaching also.
| hagbard_c wrote:
| Wearing a helmet makes falling more likely? Vaccination makes
| disease more likely? Fire drills increase the chance of fire?
| Information about bear awareness makes bear encounters more
| likely?
|
| Of course not. Civil defence is a good thing, sticking your
| head in the sand is not. Also, the brochure is not just about
| war but also about other crises. Sweden can experience
| 'interesting' weather which can leave people out of reach of
| rescue services for a while so 'be prepared' is just good
| advice.
| moktonar wrote:
| No but in places where you're likely to fall, be sure there
| will be pamphlets that tell you to wear a helmet...
| ipnon wrote:
| I just watched Patlabor 2 last night, about a civil war in post-
| Cold War Japan. The main theme is the following: The thing about
| one-in-a-million events is that they are eventually going to
| happen once the other 999,999 occur. Thus a government which does
| not plan for one-in-a-million scenarios is truly derelict and
| incapable of survival.
| daneel_w wrote:
| Fantastic movie, great political plot, great direction. Part 1
| is decent, too.
| HPsquared wrote:
| I put the odds at least 10% this century.
| xg15 wrote:
| > _The thing about one-in-a-million events is that they are
| eventually going to happen once the other 999,999 occur._
|
| Nitpick: I get your point, but phrasing it like this is
| basically the gambler's fallacy. That's not how probability
| works.
|
| You could ask though if, given the changed environment, the
| one-in-a-million event still has the odds of one-in-a-million.
| Or if one-in-a-million is really such a rare thing if you make
| a billion draws...
| ipnon wrote:
| The movie asks what is the point of JSDF if Japan isn't under
| any threat ... then somebody in an F-16 fires a TV guided
| missile into the Yokohama Bay Bridge. It's a good movie, you
| should watch it.
| xg15 wrote:
| Sounds good indeed!
| mdp2021 wrote:
| Better formulation:
|
| a one-in-a-million event that is tried a million times has a
| ~63% chance of happening.
| EasyMark wrote:
| That's not really how odds work. I could take 1,000,000 cycles
| or 10,000,000 cycles or even more for a 1/1,000,000 to happen.
| daneel_w wrote:
| The literal title is "If the crisis or the war comes". Swedes and
| the Swedish language has a somewhat poetic tendency to refer to
| things in definite article, embodying them, when wanting to
| underline the seriousness.
| hagbard_c wrote:
| Nothing new here, the Swedish government has been publishing this
| guide since the second world war [1] and updates it regularly. It
| is not directly related to an increase in international tensions
| and would have been published even if Putin and his cronies were
| out on the pony farm. The last update was published in 2017/2018
| by the previous labour-led government, now that Sweden is part of
| NATO it needed an update to reflect that fact. Previous versions
| were published in 1943, 1952, 1961, 1978, 1983, 1987, 1989, 1991
| and 2017/2018.
|
| [1] https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Om_kriget_kommer
| piva00 wrote:
| I still have mine from 2017 in a kitchen drawer, as an
| immigrant it was quite informative, it's how I've learned that
| Sweden will never surrender and any messaging about it is enemy
| agitation to be ignored.
| rightbyte wrote:
| > that Sweden will never surrender and any messaging about it
| is enemy agitation to be ignored.
|
| Oh ye, the outlawing of losing wars. Not very convincing for
| adults but I guess teenagers think it sounds cool.
| hagbard_c wrote:
| The "Sweden will never surrender" part refers to the
| brochure warning against enemy propaganda which suggests
| that Swedish forces have surrendered and people should
| leave enemy forces unharmed. It is mentioned on page 5 of
| the English-language brochure:
|
| https://rib.msb.se/filer/pdf/30874.pdf
| rightbyte wrote:
| So how do you enforce an armistice when the standing
| order is "never to surrender"? I.e. not "enemy
| propaganda" but government orders. You would have units
| disregarding it left and right.
|
| I don't think it is a good idea to give the soldiers the
| impression that they will fight to the last man, since
| that encourages killing their officers at an earlier
| stage than they would otherwise. Preferably, you want to
| lure with some peace agreement that is just around the
| corner, such that the soldiers believe that there is hope
| for them.
| hagbard_c wrote:
| Swedish defence is organised according to a system called
| 'totalforsvar' or 'total defence' which includes not only
| fighting forces (army, air force, navy, marines, etc.)
| but also civilian support forces. People who are included
| in this system - which can be anything from medical
| personnel to linemen and truck drivers - have assigned
| roles and a command structure or 'krigsplacering'
| (wartime assignment). The message that 'Sweden will never
| surrender' is aimed mostly at civilians who are outside
| of the military command structure but may be included in
| the civilian support forces. It is not aimed at keeping
| some bearded Swede with a rusty axe hiding in the north-
| western mountains for 30 years after Sweden has lost a
| war, it is aimed at the trucker who may be exposed to
| enemy propaganda.
|
| If Sweden ever were to surrender in war it will most
| likely be broadcast by the prime minister and/or the
| king/queen (Sweden is a constitutional monarchy). Until
| such a time and until such a message is confirmed we'll
| just assume that Sweden has not surrendered.
| piva00 wrote:
| It's part of the defence strategy to not allow quick
| capitulation due to enemy's propaganda, the idea is to form
| armed resistance on the vast Swedish forests as a last
| resort for insurgency.
|
| Of course if pushes come to shove the reality is not black
| and white, no need to be an asshole about it because every
| adult understands that, quite juvenile of you to think they
| don't. Guess your kind of rhetoric earn points with the
| teens, no?
| kkfx wrote:
| A simple note: if you live sufficiently south for p.v., in a
| home, you can sustain services disruptions significantly:
|
| - p.v. with storage means freezers operational, and freezers
| means food, protein in particular, for potentially very long
| periods
|
| - even without p.v. a home in the wood means being able to heat
| in the winter sourcing wood in nature, uncomfortable but still
| heat, also usable to cook
|
| - you have room to store water, from the aqueduct with a personal
| pump in home pipes, so with p.v. you get cold and hot water,
| potentially for a week or two, and in nature sources tend to be
| common at our latitudes
|
| In an apartment in a dense city you can just keep a bit of water,
| but still much less than the countryside, next to zero chance for
| p.v. and energy storage, very limited chance to source water in
| nature, even issues to walk for many stairs if elevators have no
| energy. Long story short: you can't be resilient. Oh, and you
| might be targeted because hitting a city it's easy and some
| damages are assured, hitting the countryside is essentially
| wasting weapons. Remember as well: with wood you can cook various
| long lasting foods, like rice, beans, ... without wood or locally
| produced energy your cooking ability going down to zero.
|
| Floods? Spread homes might be or not at risk, but they are still
| spread, meaning few per flooded are, so rescuing it's doable as
| temporary shelters, emergency food supply etc. Dense areas? The
| same in risk terms, but extremely hard to help simply because
| there are too many people hit together.
|
| Earthquakes? Very similar, plus the fact that light homes tend to
| allow quick escape, tall buildings do not, and even if they might
| be well designed in seismic terms they are still very
| problematic. Fires? idem.
|
| Long story short: it's pointless to publish such next-to-obvious
| recommendations, some could do something, many could not.
| 7952 wrote:
| War and survival are communal activities. Tight dense
| communities tend to do better as people can support each other.
| Isolated dwellings are just ridiculously vulnerable in
| comparison. The next group of hungry/angry people who turn up
| will roll right over you. If you want to survive you should
| have neighbors and make friends with them.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-18 23:02 UTC)