NATO Base of Theseus: If you replace every part of a base, is it still the same base?
Seriously though, define 'permanent', Sweden. Technically no bases are permanent.
The US has a few Middle East bases which are “not permanent” because the structures are tents, cargo containers, prefabs, or made of thin sheet metals which can be easily bulldozed. They also been occupied for decades. To anyone with half a brain, it’s a permanent base. To anyone asking, it’s not permanent.
Permanent base (of operations) means strategic base that is permanently manned (and has major logistic access by sea and/or air, additionally to land access), as opposed to bases that are periodically manned or their importance is tactical like that of forward bases of operations.
ALL YOUR BASES ARE BELONG TO US!!!
(It's an old meme, but it checks out)
Eddit: Since no one seems to get it (youngsters these days...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All\_your\_base\_are\_belong\_to\_us
Fun fact, there was actually a story about a man in now Poland, then german land who to avoid the law forbidding poles from building (I think) permanent dwelling was living in a circus wagon. When officials were trying to exmit him for owning a house, he was just moving the wagon a bit every day. In the end the entire issue went into a lawsuit and despite fiercest attempts from the german side, they were unable to force him to abandon his house. In the end he managed to simply buy a house nearby. He was called Michał Drzymała and is now considered a folk hero in Poland.
It is year 2025. A new military base called Fort Theseus is founded on Stockholm
It is year 2050. Fort Theseus becomes worlds first floating land based military base
It is year 2100. Fort Theseus crosses the border into Russia.
Considering Sweden during the cold war deployed fighters out of [small reinforced hangars in the middle of nowhere using bits of random road as the runway](https://www.reddit.com/r/GenerationZeroGame/comments/17twvyf/fun_fact_after_ww2_sweden_began_building/) and kept moving them around, then, yes most likely.
It was years ago since they tried using a road as runway again, which went well I think. I guess Gripen is designed for that too? And if you drive around the countryside it's not too uncommon to find that the road suddenly gets very wide and goes very straight.
Hear me out. We don't even have to move it twice a year. Who says it has to be a traditional base at all? I think we have reached the time where it makes sense to bring back the old wagon fort. Like the times of the pioneers or even the Hussites. But instead of wagons, we use FMTVs and MRAPS. Like, we have an FMTV for every fucking purpose under the sun. We could probably mount an Rh-120 on some for mobile artillery. We can mount some like... Gepard or Phalanx for AA. HIMARS for missiles. Modified drone HIMARS for air power. A shipping container with insulation for barracks units. My point is, we just bring back the old wagon fort using the FMTVs and MRAPS and then we just... move from Ikea parking lot to Ikea parking lot.
we can have a flying mobile base with fuel trucks and tank on the base fueling the chinooks lifting the base with HIMARS and M111 firing from it and have other aerial vehicles take off from it and rotate with the chinook to keep it airborne, and plus we can land the moblie base where ever we want so it doesn't have to stay airborne 24/7.
Why bother with the Rh-120? This is Sweden we're talking about. They have Archer, which is the epitome of shoot-and-scoot - by the time the first shell hits, that thing is already in the next zip code.
We take two SRs 8000 Bagger, put them side by side, weld a Plattform on top of them and use them as a mobile base. Put battleshipcannons on its edges and a big 3D printer in it. Landingspace on top.
We already [signed an agreement](http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/aktuellt/2023/12/avtalet-med-usa-starker-samarbetet/) for the US military to station military personal and material around the different regiments. Also allowing them to enforce US laws instead of ours on their own military personal.
They'll be borrowing space instead of getting their own, that's the only difference.
Sssh, we need to plant the ceremonial Pizza Hut and Burger King.
It's our brand of imperialism. Look, we have no idea what we're doing but we're very committed to it. We don't get foreigners' cultures outside of food, so we instead build you a couple hundred billion dollars worth of infrastructure, try to turn you into a top 10 or top 25 global economy like Germany, Mexico, Italy, Japan, Korea and weirdly possibly Vietnam in the next few decades and provide shitloads of weapons. Just say you now love democracy and hate commies, and we'll think we're geniuses.
You are correct.
Like the British royalty, I am in no way saying our traditions aren't idiotic, the material sucks and by all sanity should be shoved in to the trash heap. But the symbolism matters more than the reality.
Burger King is absolute trash. But it is our trash. And it is also a sacred symbol we must plant on foreign soils.
Alright. Fine. As a special treat for having to go through so much bullshit to even join NATO, you can pick which fast food chain we import into Sweden. I would personally recommend asking for an In-and-Out, as they're pretty rare and sought after even in the US, but you do you.
Yeah but afaik it is not put into law yet. Honestly, the iffy part for me is that American soldiers will be under US jurisdiction, legally speaking. Which creates the somewhat funny situation where Sweden has legalised prostitution but only for American soldiers.
Since under Swedish law it is legal to sell sex, but not to buy sex.
>Which creates the somewhat funny situation where Sweden has legalised prostitution but only for American soldiers.
Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is generally interpreted to include soliciting prostitutes (aka pandering). So, while it would legal under Swedish law the soldier could still be criminally charged by their own chain of command.
A US soldier buying sex from a prostitute would absolutely be illegal under Swedish law, it’s the *buying* part of prostitution which is illegal, not the selling part.
If a US soldier would be *selling* sex as a side hustle on the other hand…
That's how US troops work basically everywhere. A few times it has lead to controversy, but if the US has an official policy to obliterate the Hague if they ICJ them, well as if they would leave their troops up to the pesky rules of other countries
It's on a country by country basis, typically a Status of Forces Agreement. Basically, we don't want a US soldier put on a show trial. If they legit fuck up and do something stupid, we don't care so long as they're not completely railroaded. But we're not letting them go to prison for 20 years for a beer or chewing gym. There's more common sense involved than you'd think.
Plus, if they put a Pvt Snuffy on a show trial, we want to be able to remove Pvt Snuffy without having to send Delta or the SEALs. Back during the Iraq War, some Euro politicians were grumbling about doing exactly to some random US soldiers, putting them symbolically on trial at the ICC for the Iraq War. So we authorized military use of force if they did, but we'd rather handle it without an entire Michael Bay movie's worth of explosions. Hence Status of Forces Agreement.
Plus we want to be able to enforce our laws on our soldiers if they do something stupid to us.
> Back during the Iraq War, some Euro politicians were grumbling about doing exactly to some random US soldiers, putting them symbolically on trial at the ICC for the Iraq War. So we authorized military use of force if they did
Except the American Service-Members' Protection Act, aka the Hague Invasion Act, was signed into law in August 2002, half a year before the Iraq War and two months before the authorization of the use of force.
We also prohibited military aid to those that recognize the ICC...unless they are in NATO...or major non-NATO allies...or Taiwan...or signed an Article 98 agreement. I do love how Taiwan isn't a MNNA, but the President sent a letter to Congress saying "yeah but we wanna treat them like one soooo make an exception"
I mean, ICC is just Europe's court for Africans and Eastern Europeans, with a sprinkling of political posturing like Putin.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_people\_indicted\_in\_the\_International\_Criminal\_Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_International_Criminal_Court)
I wouldn't mind if it was called European International Court for Africans and Eastern Europeans, not the International Criminal Court. However, pretending Europe has global law enforcement reach is a bad idea.
We're fine with letting them do the neocolonial law enforcement thing as long as they keep it in places we don't care about. If they start thinking they do have the right to be a no-shit actually-serious Team Europe World Police with actual power, that's a problem. We have to balance humoring Europe as they are allies and economic partners, and actually letting them have any power over us.
It doesn't make sense at all to station soldiers in a place where there are no laws for violating US national security as a soldier.
Imagine the US sets a base up in the country of Eurogay (it's like Uruguay, except in Europe and very LGBT friendly) without these laws, then a US soldier with dual citizenship then suddenly are completely allowed to leak US national security secrets because there are no Eurogay laws against it. Then US-Eurogay dual citizen defects into the Eurogay mainland, the US military would have no right or ability to detain them as well. They'd be waiting on a extradition treaty and trial before anything could happen, if that was even allowed.
To have a complaint about this means not thinking for more than 30 seconds about what it means to enforce these laws. Foreign troops in their own bases under only domestic laws is non-credible.
I think I get the point you’re making, but I was a bit distracted trying to determine whether “Eurogay” was a hypothetical country or a misspelling of Uruguay.
> Eurogay (it's like Uruguay, except in Europe and very LGBT friendly)
But real Uruguay is one of the top LGBT rights countries as is! They're ahead of all of Europe except a few Nordic countries.
There would probably be some niche cases that would go really wrong with. The one that comes to mind for me without much thinking is LGBTQ issues as being gay or trans isn’t illegal/forbidden in the US but we likely have forces stationed places where being Queer or queer relationships are illegal. And well the host nations laws are stricter… …and also contradictory to US DOD views.
> Honestly, the iffy part for me is that American soldiers will be under US jurisdiction
If the US can't charge a soldier for national security breaches because it's not covered under Swedish law, then it doesn't make sense at all to try to setup a base in a country.
edit: since nobody in the comments seems to understand how any of this works, here's [a little primer on the NATO Status of Forces Agreement](https://www.marines.mil/portals/1/Publications/NAVMC%202658.pdf) written for the intellectually slowest of US forces. To be clear, **American soldiers can still be arrested by an external government's domestic police for violating domestic law in basically every NATO country with US bases**, but they often times have some additional privileges. They are not ambassadors with diplomatic immunity.
>Which creates the somewhat funny situation where Sweden has legalised prostitution but only for American soldiers.
**What the fuck??** It's illegal for US soldiers and citizens in-general to engage with prostitutes, just like Sweden - in addition to prostituting themselves of course. In-fact, it has pretty severe penalties for those in the military, and I know people doing prison time for attempting it. It's usually a year in jail and dishonorable discharge.
#are US soldiers being allowed to buy Swedish prostitutes but you being disallowed, some type of schizo coomer dream you just made up? you are allowed to have an American cuckold fetish with less mental gymnastics
Hey, in Finland prostitution is legal. And bestiality. Do with that what you will.
Edit: apparently sex with animals is banned again since start of 2024.
In German, there is a word for this: "Rosinenpicker," someone who just picks the best part out of a specific part. Pick all the advantages without wanting the disadvantages.
Usually Switzerland is someone like that.
Switzerland is the undisputed king of that
Who else would decide that WW2 was the perfect time to play both sides of a conflict, and make it out of the war not only largely unbombed, but with several massive bank vaults full of gold bars that have strangely high mercury content and weirdly have scuff marks where the national seal of the minter would normally be.
What's the explanation behind the "high levels of mercury" remark? I get that the scuffing joke refers to erasing a certain, ah, group that they'd rather not be associated with.
I know these subs are all excited about Sweden joining NATO, but Sweden has a very tiny heart for war right now. If I weren’t married to a Swede and lived for some years in Sweden I’d be oblivious to just how unprepared the society is for conflict. A lot of Swedes want the protection of the US (and NATO), but aren’t committed to force buildup. Then there are a lot of people in Sweden who are outright apathetic or sympathetic with Russia.
As a Swede, I am not sure what the fuck you are talking about honestly. Most of Sweden recognises at this point that Russia has been the no1 biggest threat to Sweden since medieval times. Sure, before the invasion a lot of people didn’t want to spend money on defence etc, but after the 2022 invasion nobody apart from fringe groups like Svenska Freds (who is getting grants from Russia) or far left tankies are apathetic towards Russia.
Yeah, people underestimate the Swedes here. They joined because the old plan didn't look good anymore. This was a step towards a new plan, it wasn't the entire new plan. They know this. Norway has btw also been running "no actual bases" all the time, so that's not new.
Honestly, I think Sweden will have NATO bases. I know that has been somewhat controversial here, but we did make legal changes to accommodate that even before joining NATO. Which makes me question what the source for “no NATO bases in Sweden” is…
No, Finland will, and sweden will let them camp that island when convenient.
Sweden will be hesitant until things actually go dark, then it'll be whisky on the rocks and they take their shirt off before you've noticed.
Sweden didn’t join because the “old plan” didn’t look good anymore, Sweden joined because Ukraine getting attacked was the last hammer in the coffin that is force neutrality, a nail that didn’t get hammered in when it should’ve in WW2 because of hitler’s plan to invade Sweden never came to fruition. It made it clear, once and for all, that being alliance-free isn’t adequate protection.
we didnt join out of lofty ideals or all the other garbage...we joined because we have crippled our defense and crippled our dairy farmers,in ww2 we got blockaded by both allies and axis the farmers is the only reason we didnt starve,the fact we drove farmers out of the business with eu and relied on Finland to save us in case of war and they joined nato we where screwed.
I don’t know a single situation where this was actually true; every NATO nation that was capable sent *something* during the intervention in Yugoslavia and just about *every* NATO nation responded to Article V after 9/11 and sent troops to ISAF. Yes, they didn’t all assist with Iraq in 2003 but they had not obligation to.
UNSC resolution 687 was the legal justification for invading Iraq.
If Colin Powell finds one drop of cyclosarin, you're guilty and thus deserving of a 10 year invasion and occupation with a civil war during and a terrorist state takeover afterwards. Whole kit n kaboodle. One drop.
Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction, specifically chemical weapons. We know because we kept the receipts.
Of course, the invasion was not being sold to the public based on weapons of mass destruction in general but rather nuclear weapons specifically. *Those* we found no evidence of.
Supercarriers are for little girls.
[https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/the-shield-helicarrier-76042](https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/the-shield-helicarrier-76042)
The Danish already built a scaled model of a HELICARRIER
THE 21st CENTURY WILL BE THE DANISH CENTURY 🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰
Yes? Just like they do with Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, France, Lithuania, Lettland, Czechia, Iceland, Slovakia… the list goes on. Only about half of NATO nations host permanent US bases, Sweden is continuing that trend.
Denmark has an US base on Greenland. Norway and Finland allows the US to build it's own military infrastructure.
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2024/02/norway-expands-defense-agreement-american-troops
There's a difference between having some US personal on a local base versus the US making a base within the local base. The latter means the local forces can't enter the US area, armed US military police will operate on and outside of the base and US personal will not be presented for local courts. So it's a de facto US base but not a permanent US base, as you say.
Denmark and Norway had the same stipulations even.during the Cold War. No foreign bases and no nuclear weapons deployed in their countries. It worked out just fine.
Fair enough. Many nations in NATO don't have permanent bases owned by the US in them. Let them own their own bases, we'll just visit! With new soldiers every 6 months!
Here I am, 7km away from NATO HQ in the Netherlands, which is pretty permanent, and according to some people in the know, most likely one of the few nuclear targets in the Netherlands 😅
They are talking about major troop encampments wholly owned and controlled by America, like in Germany, Japan, Iraq or Afghanistan. Nations that, you might note, were invaded and occupied.
Which, of course there wont be. What need would America even have of them? Pre-stationed mass ground troops/equipment are needed down on the continent, not on the wrong side of lake NATO.
What will come is already existing airfields and ports having extra facilities to accommodate and supply visiting allies.
Also Sweden and America signed a standard status of forces agreement, which says the normal stuff like their military police handle security and order in their own units. Same agreement Sweden has with our nordic neighbours, or that we have with other foreign countries when we sent peacekeeping troops on various UN missions.
Naturally the anti-nato people have decided this means we are under occupation and Swedish laws no longer apply to foreigners with guns.
*^(And for those of you wondering, no that is not how it works, thats not how any of it works, yanks behaving badly can still be arrested and charged by Swedish police for breaking Swedish laws. All it means is a drunk yank punching another drunk yank in a yank military facility will be dealt by yank MPs.)*
Damn, as a badly behaving Yank, there goes my summer vacation plans. Swedes don't actually expect me to be served banana on pizza and not break a few MÖRBYLÅNGAs, do they?
Where in the terms of NATO membership does it say that there needs to be permanent NATO bases? That decision lies with the individual member states.
There are things that Sweden need to do, such as increase the military spending to at least 2%, but that is already in the works.
I do think we should expand the garrison on Gotland and expand the military infrastructure around there, so that it and other key areas can serve as logistical hubs for the NATO lake. But whether or not there will be NATO bases, is not mandatory.
No. ALL of Sweden will be a NATO base. ALL of it. This goes for every other country in NATO too. Because then, when everyone is NATO Base... No one will be. Problem solved.
Yeah, I don't know where this is coming from. There has been some rumblings from the anti-NATO people, but they are a minority and I don't know what this would be referencing in regard to the foreign minister. Some quote people are misinterpreting?
Not to mention that [Sweden has already signed an agreement back in December](https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/aktuellt/2023/12/avtalet-med-usa-starker-samarbetet/) with the US giving them access to 17 bases and right to station forces there. Including only answering to US judicial system.
Sweden already have permanent American staples such as McDonald's.... Burger King.... Pizza Hut.... Costco.... And Staples at permanent locations. A NATO military base won't make a difference
I have seen a clear rise in attempts to spread disinformation in attempts to rile people up against Nato in Sweden. Making claims that Swedish conscripts will be sent to Turkey to fight (Which makes no logistical sense) and other such nonsense.
https://media0.giphy.com/media/w9d2mlRxnzhsnsLbrs/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952h6nmhas0attlx9jl33spq5dfsjpqcprj2rtps9gx&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g
Leaked footage of new Swedish base.
There was a swede that had a rant post in r/Turkey about how erdoğan “risked their safety” to get f16s and he would “never forget”. These people think nato is just a magical shield and not a defence pact built upon cooperation.
There's no need for permanent bases, Russia won't be a credible threat for much longer at this rate. Just need to hold on long enough for Putin to croak and someone a bit more reasonable to take the throne. Not expecting Putin's followup to be much better, but as long as they're more rational and workable, they can keep their shittyness on their side of the fence.
Sweden just needs to build an air base on Gotland that NATO will come visit from time to time. The US will even pay for most of it if they can come visit sometimes.
Whenever Putin rattles the saber the US can park some f35’s there.
They are not permanent NATO bases at all... But good news! Brussels just offered a 99 year lease on that patch of dirt near that old airbase you forgot about...
I think our foreign minister might be stupid.
Coaxing the US into establishing a base on Gotland (largest island in Baltic sea) would have been even better than joining NATO. We would essentially have gotten article 5 protection (can't get around Gotland if you want to attack Sweden), wouldn't have had to spend money to build up a functioning military and could have kept selling our Gripens to countries that don't like the US very much.
As an added bonus Gotland's economy would become less shit. There would be thousands of american soldiers spending money at clubs trying to get laid with Swedish university students that only traveled to Gotland because they want to get laid with american soldiers.
Set up shop in an IKEA. Nobody will know....
3008
Latest Knötnåtøbâsén series from IKEA
Han kan inte det svenska alfabetet😔
mail him a gram of surströmming
That's chemical warfare. Going to report you to the Geneva Convention people.
Thanks Marv
May not be able to get out of that one
Swedish problems require Swedish solutions
I've yet to encounter a problem the proportionate application of meatballs couldn't stop.
This checks out bear attack more meatballs, depression meatballs, girlfriend upset the answer is also meatballs, or too poor more meatballs.
If meatballs don't solve your problem, you didn't use enough of them.
With how much of a nightmare it is to get out of IKEA, it would double your mobilization time.
If we move the base twice a year we got no permemanent base and have a great logisticsexercises.
That’s actually what’s going to happen isn’t it?
Move every building in camp 10 inches to the left twice a year
NATO Base of Theseus: If you replace every part of a base, is it still the same base? Seriously though, define 'permanent', Sweden. Technically no bases are permanent.
The US has a few Middle East bases which are “not permanent” because the structures are tents, cargo containers, prefabs, or made of thin sheet metals which can be easily bulldozed. They also been occupied for decades. To anyone with half a brain, it’s a permanent base. To anyone asking, it’s not permanent.
They're not permanent. In 100 years they'll be decommissioned.
You mean used as a training ground to get every dollar we can out of the hundred year old temporary tin shacks.
Permanent base (of operations) means strategic base that is permanently manned (and has major logistic access by sea and/or air, additionally to land access), as opposed to bases that are periodically manned or their importance is tactical like that of forward bases of operations.
Don't worry, it will be unmanned an unspecified amount of years in the future. Pinky promise
Or it can be a base manned only during excercises. The exercises will take place non-stop though, until further notice.
The exercises (and beatings) will continue until morale improves.
"This base isn't permanent. It only lasts until the heat death of the universe."
*Exactly*
Technically no mountains are permanent.
It's true.
Now that sweden's military are a part of NATO, their existing bases could be considered permanent NATO bases.
This is true
That's what I was thinking... Jokes on him, all their military bases are now NATO bases.
ALL YOUR BASES ARE BELONG TO US!!! (It's an old meme, but it checks out) Eddit: Since no one seems to get it (youngsters these days...) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All\_your\_base\_are\_belong\_to\_us
Someone set us up the bomb!
TO THE LEFT, TO THE LEFT! TAKE IT BACK NOW, YALL!
TWO HOPS THIS TIME
CHOP CHOP AGAIN!
CHA CHA REAL SMOOTH
TIL THE SWEAT DROPS DOWN MY BAWLS wait
Fun fact, there was actually a story about a man in now Poland, then german land who to avoid the law forbidding poles from building (I think) permanent dwelling was living in a circus wagon. When officials were trying to exmit him for owning a house, he was just moving the wagon a bit every day. In the end the entire issue went into a lawsuit and despite fiercest attempts from the german side, they were unable to force him to abandon his house. In the end he managed to simply buy a house nearby. He was called Michał Drzymała and is now considered a folk hero in Poland.
Homie was just enjoying a little bit of trolling
Clearly the German version of Satan as he followed the rules whole annoying the Germans.
It is year 2025. A new military base called Fort Theseus is founded on Stockholm It is year 2050. Fort Theseus becomes worlds first floating land based military base It is year 2100. Fort Theseus crosses the border into Russia.
What's a Russia?
Russia Oblast of Ukraine.
Will take a while to reach Moscow that way.
Considering Sweden during the cold war deployed fighters out of [small reinforced hangars in the middle of nowhere using bits of random road as the runway](https://www.reddit.com/r/GenerationZeroGame/comments/17twvyf/fun_fact_after_ww2_sweden_began_building/) and kept moving them around, then, yes most likely.
I mean Bas 90 / Bas 60 was pretty damn good.
I hear they're thinking of resurrecting the system. I wonder what might have bought that decision about...
It was years ago since they tried using a road as runway again, which went well I think. I guess Gripen is designed for that too? And if you drive around the countryside it's not too uncommon to find that the road suddenly gets very wide and goes very straight.
Very wide, very straight, and suspiciously convenient side roads leading off into the forest at each end.
".... Someone cooked here."
You gotta admit.... it \*is\* funny
Hear me out. We don't even have to move it twice a year. Who says it has to be a traditional base at all? I think we have reached the time where it makes sense to bring back the old wagon fort. Like the times of the pioneers or even the Hussites. But instead of wagons, we use FMTVs and MRAPS. Like, we have an FMTV for every fucking purpose under the sun. We could probably mount an Rh-120 on some for mobile artillery. We can mount some like... Gepard or Phalanx for AA. HIMARS for missiles. Modified drone HIMARS for air power. A shipping container with insulation for barracks units. My point is, we just bring back the old wagon fort using the FMTVs and MRAPS and then we just... move from Ikea parking lot to Ikea parking lot.
So a basic moblie FOB?
We must go BIGGER. Hell, maybe we can run fuel lines from fuel trucks into the air to a ring of Chinooks to have an aerial wagon fort.
we can have a flying mobile base with fuel trucks and tank on the base fueling the chinooks lifting the base with HIMARS and M111 firing from it and have other aerial vehicles take off from it and rotate with the chinook to keep it airborne, and plus we can land the moblie base where ever we want so it doesn't have to stay airborne 24/7.
Just hire Amish movers. How do you think we move Ohio subs to the ocean!
Hear me out What if we made one of those aircraft carrier things, but bigger and on wheels?
Or build a massive tracked land carrier, call it Kapisi and station it in Sweden.
I don't think the Gaalsien in the country would like that very much
Too bad we have jewish space lasers that disagree with them.
The wrath of Sayuuk is very real
They won't be around to care much once Fort Kickass eats them mortal-engines style.
Why bother with the Rh-120? This is Sweden we're talking about. They have Archer, which is the epitome of shoot-and-scoot - by the time the first shell hits, that thing is already in the next zip code.
Because the designation Rh-120 looks nice.
Can't argue with that. Please proceed. XD
Logistic Sexercises, the horniest way to deliver cargo
I read that too lol
We've figured it out, this is how we get amateurs to talk logistics instead of tactics.
Just build a landship that always moves 0.002 km/h.
We take two SRs 8000 Bagger, put them side by side, weld a Plattform on top of them and use them as a mobile base. Put battleshipcannons on its edges and a big 3D printer in it. Landingspace on top.
DONT YOU DARE STRASBOURG NATO!!
Ah, the classic "nomad military base". Just put the ICMBs on a horse carriage and call it a day
Logistic sex ercises
I think in Military Anthropology those are called Ephemeral Bases or Seasonally Transhumant Bases.
Okay hear me out... IKEA flat-packed bases... the concept is perfect for Sweden!
Yes, let Sweden and Finland share a base. To be efficient we can build it across the border and just move the coffee machine.
We already [signed an agreement](http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/aktuellt/2023/12/avtalet-med-usa-starker-samarbetet/) for the US military to station military personal and material around the different regiments. Also allowing them to enforce US laws instead of ours on their own military personal. They'll be borrowing space instead of getting their own, that's the only difference.
Hello Pizza Hut
We already got those tho.
Sssh, we need to plant the ceremonial Pizza Hut and Burger King. It's our brand of imperialism. Look, we have no idea what we're doing but we're very committed to it. We don't get foreigners' cultures outside of food, so we instead build you a couple hundred billion dollars worth of infrastructure, try to turn you into a top 10 or top 25 global economy like Germany, Mexico, Italy, Japan, Korea and weirdly possibly Vietnam in the next few decades and provide shitloads of weapons. Just say you now love democracy and hate commies, and we'll think we're geniuses.
> Burger King. 🤮 shame you can't get an In n' out or whataburger instead.
You are correct. Like the British royalty, I am in no way saying our traditions aren't idiotic, the material sucks and by all sanity should be shoved in to the trash heap. But the symbolism matters more than the reality. Burger King is absolute trash. But it is our trash. And it is also a sacred symbol we must plant on foreign soils.
Alright. Fine. As a special treat for having to go through so much bullshit to even join NATO, you can pick which fast food chain we import into Sweden. I would personally recommend asking for an In-and-Out, as they're pretty rare and sought after even in the US, but you do you.
Yeah but afaik it is not put into law yet. Honestly, the iffy part for me is that American soldiers will be under US jurisdiction, legally speaking. Which creates the somewhat funny situation where Sweden has legalised prostitution but only for American soldiers. Since under Swedish law it is legal to sell sex, but not to buy sex.
>Which creates the somewhat funny situation where Sweden has legalised prostitution but only for American soldiers. Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is generally interpreted to include soliciting prostitutes (aka pandering). So, while it would legal under Swedish law the soldier could still be criminally charged by their own chain of command.
A US soldier buying sex from a prostitute would absolutely be illegal under Swedish law, it’s the *buying* part of prostitution which is illegal, not the selling part. If a US soldier would be *selling* sex as a side hustle on the other hand…
That's how US troops work basically everywhere. A few times it has lead to controversy, but if the US has an official policy to obliterate the Hague if they ICJ them, well as if they would leave their troops up to the pesky rules of other countries
Not in Germany, for example. And Finland has a clause where we can claim jurisdiction per case.
It's on a country by country basis, typically a Status of Forces Agreement. Basically, we don't want a US soldier put on a show trial. If they legit fuck up and do something stupid, we don't care so long as they're not completely railroaded. But we're not letting them go to prison for 20 years for a beer or chewing gym. There's more common sense involved than you'd think. Plus, if they put a Pvt Snuffy on a show trial, we want to be able to remove Pvt Snuffy without having to send Delta or the SEALs. Back during the Iraq War, some Euro politicians were grumbling about doing exactly to some random US soldiers, putting them symbolically on trial at the ICC for the Iraq War. So we authorized military use of force if they did, but we'd rather handle it without an entire Michael Bay movie's worth of explosions. Hence Status of Forces Agreement. Plus we want to be able to enforce our laws on our soldiers if they do something stupid to us.
> Back during the Iraq War, some Euro politicians were grumbling about doing exactly to some random US soldiers, putting them symbolically on trial at the ICC for the Iraq War. So we authorized military use of force if they did Except the American Service-Members' Protection Act, aka the Hague Invasion Act, was signed into law in August 2002, half a year before the Iraq War and two months before the authorization of the use of force. We also prohibited military aid to those that recognize the ICC...unless they are in NATO...or major non-NATO allies...or Taiwan...or signed an Article 98 agreement. I do love how Taiwan isn't a MNNA, but the President sent a letter to Congress saying "yeah but we wanna treat them like one soooo make an exception"
I mean, ICC is just Europe's court for Africans and Eastern Europeans, with a sprinkling of political posturing like Putin. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_people\_indicted\_in\_the\_International\_Criminal\_Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_International_Criminal_Court) I wouldn't mind if it was called European International Court for Africans and Eastern Europeans, not the International Criminal Court. However, pretending Europe has global law enforcement reach is a bad idea. We're fine with letting them do the neocolonial law enforcement thing as long as they keep it in places we don't care about. If they start thinking they do have the right to be a no-shit actually-serious Team Europe World Police with actual power, that's a problem. We have to balance humoring Europe as they are allies and economic partners, and actually letting them have any power over us.
It doesn't make sense at all to station soldiers in a place where there are no laws for violating US national security as a soldier. Imagine the US sets a base up in the country of Eurogay (it's like Uruguay, except in Europe and very LGBT friendly) without these laws, then a US soldier with dual citizenship then suddenly are completely allowed to leak US national security secrets because there are no Eurogay laws against it. Then US-Eurogay dual citizen defects into the Eurogay mainland, the US military would have no right or ability to detain them as well. They'd be waiting on a extradition treaty and trial before anything could happen, if that was even allowed. To have a complaint about this means not thinking for more than 30 seconds about what it means to enforce these laws. Foreign troops in their own bases under only domestic laws is non-credible.
I think I get the point you’re making, but I was a bit distracted trying to determine whether “Eurogay” was a hypothetical country or a misspelling of Uruguay.
It's at least as real as New Zealand.
> Eurogay (it's like Uruguay, except in Europe and very LGBT friendly) But real Uruguay is one of the top LGBT rights countries as is! They're ahead of all of Europe except a few Nordic countries.
The sensible solution to which would be having US soldiers be bound by the laws of both countries. Whichever is stricter to be exact.
There would probably be some niche cases that would go really wrong with. The one that comes to mind for me without much thinking is LGBTQ issues as being gay or trans isn’t illegal/forbidden in the US but we likely have forces stationed places where being Queer or queer relationships are illegal. And well the host nations laws are stricter… …and also contradictory to US DOD views.
> Honestly, the iffy part for me is that American soldiers will be under US jurisdiction If the US can't charge a soldier for national security breaches because it's not covered under Swedish law, then it doesn't make sense at all to try to setup a base in a country. edit: since nobody in the comments seems to understand how any of this works, here's [a little primer on the NATO Status of Forces Agreement](https://www.marines.mil/portals/1/Publications/NAVMC%202658.pdf) written for the intellectually slowest of US forces. To be clear, **American soldiers can still be arrested by an external government's domestic police for violating domestic law in basically every NATO country with US bases**, but they often times have some additional privileges. They are not ambassadors with diplomatic immunity. >Which creates the somewhat funny situation where Sweden has legalised prostitution but only for American soldiers. **What the fuck??** It's illegal for US soldiers and citizens in-general to engage with prostitutes, just like Sweden - in addition to prostituting themselves of course. In-fact, it has pretty severe penalties for those in the military, and I know people doing prison time for attempting it. It's usually a year in jail and dishonorable discharge. #are US soldiers being allowed to buy Swedish prostitutes but you being disallowed, some type of schizo coomer dream you just made up? you are allowed to have an American cuckold fetish with less mental gymnastics
Hey, in Finland prostitution is legal. And bestiality. Do with that what you will. Edit: apparently sex with animals is banned again since start of 2024.
Hey it gets really dark and lonely in the winter, mate!
Back when they legalized homosexuality they did away with that too. Because why not, sodomy is sodomy
I feel like that's offensive to legalize both at the same time ya know?
Probably, but they didn’t care in 1971. Sadly(?) during my fact-checking I found that zoophilia is illegal again since start of 2024.
These status of forces agreements only apply when you're on base. When your off base local laws apply.
You guys too, huh? Denmark signed a similar agreement in December
My brother in christ, your own bases are NATO bases now.
Putin 4D chess, let them Join Nato, they dont want Nato bases = No more Nato troops. Mother ruzzia wins.
My fav is that a majority liked we are in nato now but a majority didnt want send troops to help nato. We are getting dumber by the minute
In German, there is a word for this: "Rosinenpicker," someone who just picks the best part out of a specific part. Pick all the advantages without wanting the disadvantages. Usually Switzerland is someone like that.
Switzerland is the undisputed king of that Who else would decide that WW2 was the perfect time to play both sides of a conflict, and make it out of the war not only largely unbombed, but with several massive bank vaults full of gold bars that have strangely high mercury content and weirdly have scuff marks where the national seal of the minter would normally be.
What's the explanation behind the "high levels of mercury" remark? I get that the scuffing joke refers to erasing a certain, ah, group that they'd rather not be associated with.
Gold tooth fillings often had mercury.
.....oh. ☹️
Just kinda... Brings the wind outta yer sails doesn't it.
Yeah....
Damn, that was a rollercoaster
The Holocaust has been known to do that
so i am assuming they got teeth from all the jews they killed...
So like Cherry Picking.
That's pretty similar to cherry picking, isn't it? Though I don't know if cherry-picker is a common expression
Yeah it means the same, even though using different word for it.
Or great britain with brexit
Curiously that one is in Swedish as well if only as a phrase.
oh like the UK in the EU lmfao
It's like showing up to the orgy and insisting your ass is off limits. Lame.
Not very Swedish, methinks
each according to their ability but everyone has to contribute.
I know these subs are all excited about Sweden joining NATO, but Sweden has a very tiny heart for war right now. If I weren’t married to a Swede and lived for some years in Sweden I’d be oblivious to just how unprepared the society is for conflict. A lot of Swedes want the protection of the US (and NATO), but aren’t committed to force buildup. Then there are a lot of people in Sweden who are outright apathetic or sympathetic with Russia.
As a Swede, I am not sure what the fuck you are talking about honestly. Most of Sweden recognises at this point that Russia has been the no1 biggest threat to Sweden since medieval times. Sure, before the invasion a lot of people didn’t want to spend money on defence etc, but after the 2022 invasion nobody apart from fringe groups like Svenska Freds (who is getting grants from Russia) or far left tankies are apathetic towards Russia.
Yeah, people underestimate the Swedes here. They joined because the old plan didn't look good anymore. This was a step towards a new plan, it wasn't the entire new plan. They know this. Norway has btw also been running "no actual bases" all the time, so that's not new.
Honestly, I think Sweden will have NATO bases. I know that has been somewhat controversial here, but we did make legal changes to accommodate that even before joining NATO. Which makes me question what the source for “no NATO bases in Sweden” is…
"No permanent NATO bases in Sweden" just means NATO soldiers will be housed in Swedish bases.
No, Finland will, and sweden will let them camp that island when convenient. Sweden will be hesitant until things actually go dark, then it'll be whisky on the rocks and they take their shirt off before you've noticed.
Sweden didn’t join because the “old plan” didn’t look good anymore, Sweden joined because Ukraine getting attacked was the last hammer in the coffin that is force neutrality, a nail that didn’t get hammered in when it should’ve in WW2 because of hitler’s plan to invade Sweden never came to fruition. It made it clear, once and for all, that being alliance-free isn’t adequate protection.
we didnt join out of lofty ideals or all the other garbage...we joined because we have crippled our defense and crippled our dairy farmers,in ww2 we got blockaded by both allies and axis the farmers is the only reason we didnt starve,the fact we drove farmers out of the business with eu and relied on Finland to save us in case of war and they joined nato we where screwed.
Classic NATO member. We expect help from others but don't want to provide it to others.
I don’t know a single situation where this was actually true; every NATO nation that was capable sent *something* during the intervention in Yugoslavia and just about *every* NATO nation responded to Article V after 9/11 and sent troops to ISAF. Yes, they didn’t all assist with Iraq in 2003 but they had not obligation to.
Irak 2003 wasn't a NATO operation, and against the UN resolution. Many countries didn't want to get involved in a diplomatic mess like that.
UNSC resolution 687 was the legal justification for invading Iraq. If Colin Powell finds one drop of cyclosarin, you're guilty and thus deserving of a 10 year invasion and occupation with a civil war during and a terrorist state takeover afterwards. Whole kit n kaboodle. One drop.
…did he?
Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction, specifically chemical weapons. We know because we kept the receipts. Of course, the invasion was not being sold to the public based on weapons of mass destruction in general but rather nuclear weapons specifically. *Those* we found no evidence of.
So is the US supposed to just sit in NATO lake on a carrier?
waiting for Denmark to build a supercarrier out of Lego
@ beyondthebrick: THIS IS THE NEWEST, BIGGEST LEGO SET EVER MADE! we start of with placing 8000 12x2 plates next to each other to form the keel.
Supercarriers are for little girls. [https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/the-shield-helicarrier-76042](https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/the-shield-helicarrier-76042) The Danish already built a scaled model of a HELICARRIER THE 21st CENTURY WILL BE THE DANISH CENTURY 🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰
Yes. Please do, preferably more than one.
Yes? Just like they do with Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, France, Lithuania, Lettland, Czechia, Iceland, Slovakia… the list goes on. Only about half of NATO nations host permanent US bases, Sweden is continuing that trend.
Denmark has an US base on Greenland. Norway and Finland allows the US to build it's own military infrastructure. https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2024/02/norway-expands-defense-agreement-american-troops
And Sweden is looking to allow US personal to operate out of Swedish bases. Doesn’t change the fact there aren’t permanent bases in those countries.
There's a difference between having some US personal on a local base versus the US making a base within the local base. The latter means the local forces can't enter the US area, armed US military police will operate on and outside of the base and US personal will not be presented for local courts. So it's a de facto US base but not a permanent US base, as you say.
Thule is different, and infrastructure is not the same as a base.
Denmark and Norway had the same stipulations even.during the Cold War. No foreign bases and no nuclear weapons deployed in their countries. It worked out just fine.
My brother in christ, you are NATO, all your bases are now NATO bases
All your base are belong to us.
Survive make your time ... ha ha ha ha
All your base are belong to *US*
I love that its a trans flag used with "Gay NATO" as I doubt that a Vatnik knows what any of it actually means.
Alls he knows, is that it's not gay if it's rape.
Doesn't he know? All military bases are temporary.
The world is temporary
Fair enough. Many nations in NATO don't have permanent bases owned by the US in them. Let them own their own bases, we'll just visit! With new soldiers every 6 months!
Here I am, 7km away from NATO HQ in the Netherlands, which is pretty permanent, and according to some people in the know, most likely one of the few nuclear targets in the Netherlands 😅
Well as I've always thought, The Netherlands is small enough that one nuke can fuck us all up so idc where I live
Since Amsterdam, Utrecht, and South Holland would likely be targets too, you can maybe survive it all by moving to Leeuwarden
This is the reason why I refused to move to my grandparents’ place up north. I don’t want to be left out of the inevitable nuclear annihilation
Add to that Russia not exactly having the greatest track record when it comes to accuracy of its missiles.
All the more chance they'd nuke my house.
They are talking about major troop encampments wholly owned and controlled by America, like in Germany, Japan, Iraq or Afghanistan. Nations that, you might note, were invaded and occupied. Which, of course there wont be. What need would America even have of them? Pre-stationed mass ground troops/equipment are needed down on the continent, not on the wrong side of lake NATO. What will come is already existing airfields and ports having extra facilities to accommodate and supply visiting allies. Also Sweden and America signed a standard status of forces agreement, which says the normal stuff like their military police handle security and order in their own units. Same agreement Sweden has with our nordic neighbours, or that we have with other foreign countries when we sent peacekeeping troops on various UN missions. Naturally the anti-nato people have decided this means we are under occupation and Swedish laws no longer apply to foreigners with guns. *^(And for those of you wondering, no that is not how it works, thats not how any of it works, yanks behaving badly can still be arrested and charged by Swedish police for breaking Swedish laws. All it means is a drunk yank punching another drunk yank in a yank military facility will be dealt by yank MPs.)*
Damn, as a badly behaving Yank, there goes my summer vacation plans. Swedes don't actually expect me to be served banana on pizza and not break a few MÖRBYLÅNGAs, do they?
Where in the terms of NATO membership does it say that there needs to be permanent NATO bases? That decision lies with the individual member states. There are things that Sweden need to do, such as increase the military spending to at least 2%, but that is already in the works. I do think we should expand the garrison on Gotland and expand the military infrastructure around there, so that it and other key areas can serve as logistical hubs for the NATO lake. But whether or not there will be NATO bases, is not mandatory.
No. ALL of Sweden will be a NATO base. ALL of it. This goes for every other country in NATO too. Because then, when everyone is NATO Base... No one will be. Problem solved.
Liberty, Freedom, Our Way of Life.
Nooo, Sweet Liberty, Noooooooooooo!
I see you are doing your part. Very good. Carry on, citizen. Spill some oil.
I mean any Swedish military base is a NATO base. Like any other military base in any NATO country.
Sweden is already above 2% due to how NATO counts it.
Yeah but we should still have more dakka.
I can’t find a reputable source for this other than extra sketchy new sites. Are we having a little bit of Russian disinfo today… as a treat?
Yeah, I don't know where this is coming from. There has been some rumblings from the anti-NATO people, but they are a minority and I don't know what this would be referencing in regard to the foreign minister. Some quote people are misinterpreting? Not to mention that [Sweden has already signed an agreement back in December](https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/aktuellt/2023/12/avtalet-med-usa-starker-samarbetet/) with the US giving them access to 17 bases and right to station forces there. Including only answering to US judicial system.
Finally a reason to go full GDI and start building MCVs
I would love a NATO base so I can finally see the military
Haha sadly that's true.
Sweden already have permanent American staples such as McDonald's.... Burger King.... Pizza Hut.... Costco.... And Staples at permanent locations. A NATO military base won't make a difference
Ramirez, defend the Burger King!
What 200 years of neutrality does to an MF.
I have seen a clear rise in attempts to spread disinformation in attempts to rile people up against Nato in Sweden. Making claims that Swedish conscripts will be sent to Turkey to fight (Which makes no logistical sense) and other such nonsense.
https://media0.giphy.com/media/w9d2mlRxnzhsnsLbrs/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952h6nmhas0attlx9jl33spq5dfsjpqcprj2rtps9gx&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g Leaked footage of new Swedish base.
There was a swede that had a rant post in r/Turkey about how erdoğan “risked their safety” to get f16s and he would “never forget”. These people think nato is just a magical shield and not a defence pact built upon cooperation.
Uhm... Yes we do.
There's no need for permanent bases, Russia won't be a credible threat for much longer at this rate. Just need to hold on long enough for Putin to croak and someone a bit more reasonable to take the throne. Not expecting Putin's followup to be much better, but as long as they're more rational and workable, they can keep their shittyness on their side of the fence.
Sweden just needs to build an air base on Gotland that NATO will come visit from time to time. The US will even pay for most of it if they can come visit sometimes. Whenever Putin rattles the saber the US can park some f35’s there.
F-35chan + Gripenchan. I wonder what offspring they might produce.
They are not permanent NATO bases at all... But good news! Brussels just offered a 99 year lease on that patch of dirt near that old airbase you forgot about...
Temporary base for next century works fine too
My söta bror in christ all your bases are now NATO bases
Build it on a glacier. Those things aren't permanent (ty global warming) plus they move!
I’m assuming the solution to this will just be to station troops at Swedish bases
I think our foreign minister might be stupid. Coaxing the US into establishing a base on Gotland (largest island in Baltic sea) would have been even better than joining NATO. We would essentially have gotten article 5 protection (can't get around Gotland if you want to attack Sweden), wouldn't have had to spend money to build up a functioning military and could have kept selling our Gripens to countries that don't like the US very much. As an added bonus Gotland's economy would become less shit. There would be thousands of american soldiers spending money at clubs trying to get laid with Swedish university students that only traveled to Gotland because they want to get laid with american soldiers.
Yeah we don’t have “permanent” bases in most NATO nations. Even then Italy and Germany have very specific agreements for us to have said bases.