(03-17-2023, 01:23 PM)Goose Wrote: Sweden brings much more to the table militarily than Finland. Sweden has a significant defense industry that Finland does not. They manufacture fighter aircraft and quite a few missiles. Sweden is also twice the population of Finland. The Swedish navy is much superior, featuring both submarines and the Visby class GMCs. Of the two, Sweden is a much "better deal" than Finland in that it is better poised to defend itself without bringing along a very long land border with Russia. Obviously, NATO wants both.
It's possible that I was viewing a liability as an asset. Finland clearly sees its border with Russia as a liability. I don't know how NATO should view it. Is it an obligation to defend a long border? Or a long border along which NATO can position troops and military equipment to deter an attack by Russia (even including potential attacks in other locations)?
I wasn't focusing on the military assets that Sweden or Finland can contribute in a war because those seemed small compared with the military assets of the US, UK, Germany, France, Poland, etc. Maybe I underestimated that value.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...