Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #2 - charagrin (05/02/2014) [-]
Sweden and the US are pretty much the only countries that are truly invasion proof, and for wildly different reasons. Swedens military is built from the ground up to repel invasion from within and outside their borders. And the US has a massive firearm saturation level, and over half of the US's citizens are current military or law enforcement, or retired military and law enforcement, or even just some random guy who owns guns. On a side note, was it Switzerland or Sweden that has the 2 year service rule and gives their soldiers rifles to keep in civilian life?
User avatar #193 to #2 - ionahorse (05/03/2014) [-]
You forget Switzerland.Any bridges/tunnels that lead out of the country are set to blow if anyone tries to invade.
User avatar #184 to #2 - flyingvivo (05/03/2014) [-]
Yesterday Live_ Russia attacks Sweden parody! (English subtitles)
Maybe in the 80s. The Supreme Commander of the Swedish Armed Forces made a statement last year saying that if Russia invades we will be able to defend one city for one week. The Russians thought this statement was hilarious since they don't even want to invade Sweden (we have nothing of value here) so they made a song about it.

Our tactic if war breaks out will probably be the same tactic that we've used to avoid war for the past 200 years, we remain neutral. And by neutral I mean we support both sides of major conflicts. In WW2 we took in Jewish refuges from for example Denmark (satwcomic.com/art/hurry-hurry-hurry.jpg) while at the same time selling iron to the nazis and letting them use our railways to transport troops to Norway.
User avatar #177 to #2 - hulibuli (05/03/2014) [-]
Yep, Sweden will fight to the last Finn.
#161 to #2 - kirkbot (05/03/2014) [-]
that was Switzerland. Here's mine
#134 to #2 - grandlordchicken (05/03/2014) [-]
I invaded the US in an incredibly sneaky way. I was born here, nobody suspects a thing.
#68 to #2 - gerfox (05/03/2014) [-]
Switzerland is truly impossible to invade, and why would you invade it?
User avatar #53 to #2 - timelordjam (05/03/2014) [-]
Anyone who wasn't born in Australia can not enter Australia without burning at the border and getting jumped by croc's (alligators) and spiders
#44 to #2 - anonymous (05/03/2014) [-]
Somalia invaded them
User avatar #39 to #2 - gnorfell (05/03/2014) [-]
Sweden is disarming the majority of their Military, mate.
User avatar #27 to #2 - ompalomper ONLINE (05/02/2014) [-]
that last is the swiss
User avatar #18 to #2 - britexplain (05/02/2014) [-]
And Switzerland.
User avatar #17 to #2 - danster (05/02/2014) [-]
Sweden and the US should totally merge.
#15 to #2 - anticitezenone (05/02/2014) [-]
Too bad Sweden has already been invaded
Too bad Sweden has already been invaded
User avatar #144 to #15 - gustaviaable (05/03/2014) [-]
Who? When? Where?
-24
#52 to #15 - RiflemanFunny has deleted their comment [-]
#125 to #52 - bann (05/03/2014) [-]
We're coming up on the 200 year anniversary of the last time foreign troops have invaded the US
#96 to #52 - bakagaijin ONLINE (05/03/2014) [-]
when and where?
User avatar #80 to #52 - fredthemilkman (05/03/2014) [-]
not successfully
-21
#81 to #80 - RiflemanFunny has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #102 to #81 - EdwardNigma ONLINE (05/03/2014) [-]
I think "Invasion proof" implies "Impossible to invade successfully" not "No invasions period."
User avatar #124 to #102 - vaggay (05/03/2014) [-]
yeah, else you could claim that 9/11 was an invasion aswell
#26 to #15 - xsap (05/02/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #146 to #26 - xgreenmaidenx (05/03/2014) [-]
But i don't... Care to tell me?
#159 to #146 - anonymous (05/03/2014) [-]
just racists complaining about immigrants
User avatar #151 to #146 - thefunnyjunkyard (05/03/2014) [-]
a **** ton of pakis.
#12 to #2 - ullonei (05/02/2014) [-]
Swedish dude reporting in:

swedens has during the last 8 years cut down most of our military and not we dont even have "Allmän värnplikt"( compulsory military service ) any longer.

now we do have a standing army but that army has more training in fighting outside Sweden. This is a result in having really no threat levels in the nordics(well russia but we have our wall that is kinda amazing, Suomi)



this picture is from sweden tho, since the cold war we have a lot of places made for guerilla warfare, we have here where i live around 20 hidden fly-bases and each town/city have bomb-shelters with guns ect. this is not knowed by most ppl cuz there is no need for ppl to know.


why sweden is not afraid for a war with russia is our alliance with all the Nordics and many of them have membership in NATO(Denmark ect)



TL;DR: well sweden is no superpower but we dont need to be.
User avatar #158 to #12 - lamadrama (05/03/2014) [-]
Yeah, tell Carl Bildt to shut the **** up. ***** be tryna' **** the relation with Russia so hard.
User avatar #33 to #12 - zevran (05/02/2014) [-]
Norwegian dude checking in. Just to clarify, Sweden does not have any millitary alliance with any NATO countries. Norway, Denmark or otherwise. A millitary alliance was briefly considered in the late 40's. But Denmark and Norway joined the NATO and did not wish any more commintment, while Finland was pressed to remain in a semi-Russian sphere of influence.

Sweden as far as I can see relies on its long standing neutrality to remain out of conflict.
#142 to #33 - teludabomb (05/03/2014) [-]
Swedish dude with some updates:

Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Iceland have made a declaration of solidarity towards each other, this means that if one of them were to be invaded they would all help that country in an appropriate manner.

If you doubt me here is the whole thing in the glorious English language:
www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumentarkiv/stoltenberg-ii/ud/Nyheter-og-pressemeldinger/pressemeldinger/2011/norden_enige.html?id=637871

Also I personally doubt that Sweden is going to be threatened with war for a very long time.
User avatar #196 to #142 - zevran (05/03/2014) [-]
"Solidarity" means very little. The language in that is neither binding or concrete. While it is true that the nordic countries would offer "solidarity" to each other if one of them were attacked the only Nordic countries bound to help each other out in case of war are Denmark and Norway who are bound by article 5 of the NATO treaty.

It's just pretty words that foreign ministers say to each other in times of peace. It's more or less as useless as any other none binding "treaty" and declaration nations agree upon.
#198 to #196 - teludabomb (05/03/2014) [-]
I do see your point, but i have to disagree with you. Each of the five Nordic countries have agreed to defend each other in times of war. Of course one country could decide to not help their neighbor anyway, but the same thing goes for the NATO agreement. This agreement of solidarity means a great deal in my eyes as the governments of the respective countries have made a pledge to come to each others aid.

But i have to say that if for example Russia decided to overtake the Nordic states there is not much we could do to stop it ourselves. Of course we can say that the United States would save us but no one can ever be one hundred percent sure.

I do sincerely want to portray my respect for your point of view. I also feel that it is very interesting to discuss these types of matters with another person with another perspective on this matter. You could very well be the one whom is correct.

Thank you and goodbye
User avatar #201 to #198 - zevran (05/03/2014) [-]
It was refreshing to see someone polite discussing politics. It was a pleasure.
User avatar #62 to #33 - thefates ONLINE (05/03/2014) [-]
He didn't say they had military alliances. He said they had close relationships. There is a difference.
User avatar #109 to #62 - zevran (05/03/2014) [-]
"why sweden is not afraid for a war with russia is our alliance with all the Nordics and many of them have membership in NATO(Denmark ect)" - ullonei

#128 to #109 - sixpoundsofjerky (05/03/2014) [-]
They don't need to foster allies, the fact is that if they're invaded the U.S. will do their 'hero' thing, and jump on that **** with overwhelming force.
User avatar #132 to #128 - adrianking (05/03/2014) [-]
Yeah, just like the US is helping out the Ukraine right now.

Don't expect the US military to bail you out of all of your problems, a country needs to pull its own weight when it comes to its defense.
#139 to #132 - anonymous (05/03/2014) [-]
I agree but one thing: the difference between "semi-soviet" Ukraine and Sweden is massive on a diplomacy level. No way the NATO or the US is going to let Russian annexation pass. Hell they'll even go to war for Finland (which has to fall first to make any sense in invading Sweden)
#133 to #132 - sixpoundsofjerky (05/03/2014) [-]
I wholeheartedly agree, it just seemed like a good time to make a joke regarding Team America.
User avatar #135 to #133 - adrianking (05/03/2014) [-]
Honestly, I would love for the military to intervene in the Ukraine. Unfortunately, all the government wants to know is what they're getting out of helping a country.

Is it so wrong to go out and defend a country just for the sake of protecting innocent lives?
#136 to #135 - sixpoundsofjerky (05/03/2014) [-]
That's a hard issue, though, because the potential loss of life from direct intervention outweighs the benefits. I know it wouldn't start WW3, another World War cannot happen due to the wonders of a global economic balance, but the fact remains that it could get pretty bad for a time.

I definitely think help should be given, but until that help can come by everyone just shaking hands, saying they're sorry, and heading home, I doubt it'll happen.
User avatar #137 to #136 - adrianking (05/03/2014) [-]
The fact of the matter is, if shaking hands was working in this situation, there wouldn't be Russian armed forces heading for Ukraine.

I don't want a battle, I just want boots on the ground in Ukraine to say "This is not going to happen."

And I would love--absolutely love--if Ukraine could get the support of other European countries, as well as the EU.
#138 to #137 - sixpoundsofjerky (05/03/2014) [-]
If it were ANY country other than Russia, it would, but Russia is one of very few nations that could actually give the U.S. a run for it's money in an armed conflict, and that potential frightens the officials who could make the decision to send troops overseas.

That said, this would be an excellent place to go public about successes with that whole super-soldier program DARPA's been talking about for years.
User avatar #140 to #138 - adrianking (05/03/2014) [-]
Yeah, that is indeed the problem. May just be my wide-eyed idealism and optimism, but I just always had hoped that the fear of defeat wouldn't stop my country from doing what is right.

What a ******* world we live in.
#141 to #140 - sixpoundsofjerky (05/03/2014) [-]
Imagine it thus: We engage Russia, and logically after a long fought battle the U.S. Is ultimately triumphant (Because absolute TacAir/Land/Sea superiority, if nothing else), but we've exhausted a lot of troops and resources in the act. Now any given number of nations held in check by our watchful eye might be bold enough to cause global catastrophe. Alternatively, though the less likely of the two, Russia wins, and then the same problem is in place, while Russia heads these 'evil' nations.

The fear of a conflict growing beyond necessary borders is what scares people, not the fear of conflict itself.
#11 to #2 - reginleif (05/02/2014) [-]
I think you're thinking about Switzerland friend, Sweden would fall within a week of Russian hostilities without NATO support.

"December Chief of Swedish Defence General Sverker Göransson stated that if Sweden were attacked, it would only be able to defend itself for one week before requiring foreign assistance. "

They made a pretty funny song about it. Yesterday Live_ Russia attacks Sweden parody! (English subtitles)

Also we have to consider that Sweden like most countries in Europe has become very effeminate and useless, I think they're too generous giving themselves a week.

Pic related is average Swedish man of military age.
#51 to #11 - dinocaster (05/03/2014) [-]
That girl is a dude? The world omg the world
That girl is a dude? The world omg the world
User avatar #55 to #51 - reginleif (05/03/2014) [-]
Some swedish dude called him "sweden's beiber". Yohio is his name btw.
User avatar #37 to #11 - robdabob ONLINE (05/03/2014) [-]
get that transvestite out of this awesome site.
User avatar #40 to #37 - reginleif (05/03/2014) [-]
Is not trannie, is average swedish man of military age.

learn2read.
#170 to #40 - anonymous (05/03/2014) [-]
"average"
User avatar #9 to #2 - dispensa (05/02/2014) [-]
Swiss guy reporting in.

Yeah, males have to join the military once they're 18.
However, nowadays there's a choice to do civil duty instead of the recruit school and the temporary service.
It's pretty much a recruit school (around 4 months in a sort of drill camp) and after that a repeated service once a year for around 20 days, you have to do that till you're around 22 I think.

Also yes, you do get to keep the rifle (SIG-550 standard service rifle), however you don't get ammo with it. Ammo gets stored in bigger governmental buildings, where the milita would gather first in times of war.
Also, you have to do mandatory target practice every 2 months, need to get a certain score.

Not all of these numbers are accurate though, since it's been a while for me and I couldn't be bothered to read up on it again, feel free to research it more though.

Hope I could help.
#3 to #2 - themonkeyfrompluto (05/02/2014) [-]
Not too long ago there was a post about Switzerland, I used to live there and a lot of people do have rifles, most a bit outdated. But Switzerland is invasion proof, you can"t bring tanks in there because the tunnels can be blown up and there are really hundreds of bunkers and hiding places.
User avatar #4 to #3 - charagrin (05/02/2014) [-]
The maybe it was Switzerland I was thinking of, or both. Add em to the list!
#5 to #4 - themonkeyfrompluto (05/02/2014) [-]
Looking at Sweden I don't think they are capable of defending everything (huge ******* borders), nor do they have to, Norway and Finland won't be attacking them anytime soon and it stayed neutral in Ww2.
#6 to #5 - afghanautopilot (05/02/2014) [-]
What about the russians? there's no direct border, but they aren't that far from Sweden and Putin's getting pretty crazy these days.
#13 to #6 - anonymous (05/02/2014) [-]
They dont need to since finns are in the way and we have military conscription so we have enough soldiers to build a meat wall between Sweden and Russia and wait till someone drops a Nuke on us.
#36 to #13 - anonymous (05/03/2014) [-]
Besides a large chunk of the swedish population is finnish and they usually go back and join the army in finland so sweden could still send them ******* back while staying neutral.
#7 to #6 - themonkeyfrompluto (05/02/2014) [-]
I think the Russians have learned that invading Scandinavia isn't really smart (Finnish-Russian war with an average k/d ratio 10:1 in favor of the Finnish) And invading Sweden would spark an world war so they won't anytime soon.
User avatar #16 to #7 - lean (05/02/2014) [-]
You can't bring old war scenarios into modern warfare mentalities. In the US we used 2 nuclear weapons of mass destruction against the Japanese in WW2, and the Al Quaeda still commits and promotes terrorism over here. No modern enemies are afraid of what happened in the past.
#19 to #16 - themonkeyfrompluto (05/02/2014) [-]
no but Al Qaida doesn't play by the same rules Russia does, Guerilla's and terrorists don't have a core nor do they have much to lose in diplomatic aspect.
 Friends (0)