Finnish Defence Minister Wants Finland and Sweden into Nato

[Happy Times]

Minister of Defence Jyri Häkämies says Nato membership for Finland and Sweden translates into increased military security in the Nordic region and a common regional defence.

Speaking at the Atlantic Council of Finland on Tuesday, Häkämies said Nato membership would further the Nordics' position in the face of Russia's growing power. The Defence Minister believes Nato membership among the Nordics would lead to the Nordic states gaining collective influence within the alliance.

Nordics Have Strength in Numbers

With Denmark, Norway and Iceland already serving as Nato members, Häkämies says the joining of Finland and Sweden would make the Nordic bloc an influential force within the military alliance.

"Equipment procurement, cooperation in crisis management and common plans for regional defence would contribute to supporting Nordic military security," deems Häkämies.

Discussions on Finnish security policy have customarily assured that Finland independently manages its defence matters.

"As Nato members, Finland and Sweden could actively participate in the Nato-Russia Council. I would like to think that our experience, expertise and vast network in terms of Russia would be welcomed by Nato," says Häkämies.

Clear Savings with Nato Membership?

Häkämies believes Nato membership would also help Finland attain American military technology.

"Were all the Nordics to direct their procurements to the United States, there would surely be clear savings to be had," predicts Häkämies.

Häkämies moreover believes it would be an advantage for all Nordic countries to be members of the same institutions.

"In addition to Finland and Sweden joining Nato, it would also be an advantage for the Nordics were Norway and Iceland to join the European Union," says the Defence Minister.

http://www.yle.fi/news/id89973.html

[Jimbuna]

Where's Dowly for his words of wisdom :p

[Tchocky]

Can't see Sweden going along with this, they're doing nicely with "strong neutrality".

Also, would this violate a military treaty that Finland holds with Russia, limiting it's aircraft to certain numbers and types (no bombers, I believe, could be wrong)?

[Skybird]

Cant comment on finland, since it is a foreign planet for me, but Sweden - as tchocky said, they get along well with their past polsicy, so - WHY? It is stupoid to desire membership for an orgnaization that on paper is strong, but in reality is split, and weak. There are lessons to be learned from Afghanistan on how NATO allowed itself getting lured into something that was not it's business at all - and then even failed to act decisevly on that commitment, no matter how stupid it was to join the show. and as the saying goes: too many cooks spoil the meal, and there are already far too many cooks in NATO . - Instead of increasing membership numbers in NATO (and the EU) - we should consider to fire half of the crews again. both organization are weak and unable to act strongly in foreign policies, and the united voice of Europe - is more a concert of selfish egoistic interests that get appeased time and again. - because they have accepted too many members. Lets have a (small) organization of core states, and a greater (more lose) association of periheral states. Dreaming I do, I know. But it would be a reasonable thing to do like this. right now, the status quo seems to do more bad than good.

[Happy Times]

Can't see Sweden going along with this, they're doing nicely with "strong neutrality".

Also, would this violate a military treaty that Finland holds with Russia, limiting it's aircraft to certain numbers and types (no bombers, I believe, could be wrong)?

Sweden was "secret member" of NATO trough out the cold war and Finland had secret relations with USA, this would just put it all in the open.
Paris Peace Treaty was a bad joke, Finland wiped ass with that treaty the day USSR broke up, rightfully so.:p
The air force is planning new stuff for the F-18s, from cruise missiles to bunker buster bombs.

[Happy Times]

Cant comment on finland, since it is a foreign planet for me, but Sweden - as tchocky said, they get along well with their past polsicy, so - WHY? It is stupoid to desire membership for an orgnaization that on paper is strong, but in reality is split, and weak. There are lessons to be learned from Afghanistan on how NATO allowed itself getting lured into something that was not it's business at all - and then even failed to act decisevly on that commitment, no matter how stupid it was to join the show. and as the saying goes: too many cooks spoil the meal, and there are already far too many cooks in NATO . - Instead of increasing membership numbers in NATO (and the EU) - we should consider to fire half of the crews again. both organization are weak and unable to act strongly in foreign policies, and the united voice of Europe - is more a concert of selfish egoistic interests that get appeased time and again. - because they have accepted too many members. Lets have a (small) organization of core states, and a greater (more lose) association of periheral states. Dreaming I do, I know. But it would be a reasonable thing to do like this. right now, the status quo seems to do more bad than good.

Swedish general said few years back that they can afford to cut their defence forces because Finland cant.:-?
A nice dream would be a Baltic-Nordic union and defence pact, but without nuclear deterrent it wouldnt work, economically it could do fine.

[Steel_Tomb]

Nice more things to piss the russians off with lol, would be a good idea in my books... not as if they are going to bomb russia any time soon.

[Dowly]

Where's Dowly for his words of wisdom :p

"I discovered I always have choices
and sometimes it's only a choice of attitude."

Ok, now that we've gotten over the copy&pasted words of wisdom, to the point!

I'm all for NATO, for the simple reason that it'll piss off Russia. :smug:

But Sweden? What the frick they're going to do there?! Fashion shows? :doh:

[Jimbuna]

Where's Dowly for his words of wisdom :p

"I discovered I always have choices
and sometimes it's only a choice of attitude."

Ok, now that we've gotten over the copy&pasted words of wisdom, to the point!

I'm all for NATO, for the simple reason that it'll piss off Russia. :smug:

But Sweden? What the frick they're going to do there?! Fashion shows? :doh:

LOL :rotfl:

[Kapitan]

It will piss russia off greatly but the two main areas of SAM defence is on the finnish boreders and the european boreders any attack im sure they would know where it came from.

Whats more russia is the 2nd largest power in the world (naval and air force rates 3rd in army) so even though they join nato its not a big problem to them i dont think they exercise to defeat nato forces anyway a few more small armies and navys and airforces isnt much of a problem.

Cant see any invasion happening soon anyway so....

[Dowly]

Whats more russia is the 2nd largest power in the world (naval and air force rates 3rd in army) so even though they join nato its not a big problem to them i dont think they exercise to defeat nato forces anyway a few more small armies and navys and airforces isnt much of a problem.

Well, the size of one's army doesnt always automatically tell the winner. Guerrilla warfare is poison for big, strictly organized armies. Big guns and an technological advantage wont help anything if you cant see the enemy. ;)

Cant see any invasion happening soon anyway so....

:yep::up:

[Kapitan]

Doubtful russia would send thier army or any airforce in thier land based cruise missiles can hit norway anyways why waste 100,000 men when 2,000 cruise missiles can do the job ?

[bradclark1]

Finland joining NATO would make Putin stand on his head and spin. You haven't seen him have a hissy fit until then. Look for some major intimidation. Sweden will be Miss Neutrality till the worlds end. It's always worked for them, why change?

[Skybird]

Swedish general said few years back that they can afford to cut their defence forces because Finland cant.:-?
A nice dream would be a Baltic-Nordic union and defence pact, but without nuclear deterrent it wouldnt work, economically it could do fine.

Swedes and Norwegians together?

I once had a Norwegians email-pal who told me this story: him sitting aboard a regular SAS flight from Sweden to Norway, the crew (forgot wether it was a stewardess or the captain) made an announcement when they passed the border into Norway: "Ladies and gentleman, we are entering norwegian airspace now. Please set back your clocks by a hundred years."

Swedes and Norwegians together? that is like German and Austrian football players forming one national team, and being applauded from an all-Dutch audience! :D

[Tchocky]

Q - What does Norway have that Sweden doesn't?

A - Good Neighbours

Never been to Norway, and only had a 10-minute stopover in Stockholm on my way to Helsinki, so this can't offend :p

[Skybird]

I spent a few days in Oslo and Trondheim, it made wonder about Norway's demography. Is there really 75% of women like in the streets, or do they just lock the males home ? :hmm:
...
[Skybird silently sneaking away and towards the next travel agency bureau]

[Dowly]

I spent a few days in Oslo and Trondheim, it made wonder about Norway's demography. Is there really 75% of women like in the streets, or do they just lock the males home ? :hmm: ...
[Skybird silently sneaking away and towards the next travel agency bureau]

:rotfl::rotfl:

[Jimbuna]

I spent a few days in Oslo and Trondheim, it made wonder about Norway's demography. Is there really 75% of women like in the streets, or do they just lock the males home ? :hmm:

Good job you weren't in Helsinki...could you imagine 75% dowly's in the streets http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/c_jane24/Smileys/4_6_100.gif

[Happy Times]

Doubtful russia would send thier army or any airforce in thier land based cruise missiles can hit norway anyways why waste 100,000 men when 2,000 cruise missiles can do the job ?

Do they even have 2000 missiles, and what would they be aiming at?

[Kapitan]

Id imagine so with over 300,000 stock piled nuclear warheads 2,000 is poket change, i should immagine the offical line is "we aim our missiles into the sea" (like the USN says) but i bet they are labeled London Paris Berlin Oslo Stockholm ect.

[Happy Times]

Id imagine so with over 300,000 stock piled nuclear warheads 2,000 is poket change, i should immagine the offical line is "we aim our missiles into the sea" (like the USN says) but i bet they are labeled London Paris Berlin Oslo Stockholm ect.

300.000? And what are you talking about, ICBMs or cruise missiles?

[Kapitan]

just stockpiled warheads both ICBM and cruise missiles.

[Happy Times]

just stockpiled warheads both ICBM and cruise missiles.

They probably have less than 10.000 active warheads, still more than enough to get a permanent winter. And about cruise missiles, if they have 2000 then maybe we have The Bomb also.:rotfl: