unbenannter blogbeitrag 20251121 en

Blog (EN)

1. Overview – "What's this all about anyway?"

  • Author: Andy Mueller
  • Source: SRF / Tagesschau
  • Original title: "Soldiers should take ammunition home again"
  • Date: 20.11.2025
  • Read on: 21.11.2025
  • Reading time: approx. 4 minutes (depending on pulse)

The article reports on the decision of the security policy committee of the Council of States to allow Swiss soldiers to store personal ammunition at home again – after almost 20 years' hiatus. See also https://clarus.news/de/Post/schweizer-soldaten-sollen-wieder-taschenmunition-daheim-haben-20251121

2. Summary – "I got it, now you do too"

Introduction

Switzerland is once again discussing whether soldiers should stockpile ammunition at home – a security policy boomerang that's returning due to the "current situation."

Key Facts

  • Personal ammunition was abolished in 2007 due to suicides and homicides. fileciteturn0file0
  • The Council of States committee decides with 7 to 5 votes for a return.
  • Justification: The tense security situation in Europe.
  • Critics warn: The previous decline in firearm suicides would be endangered.
  • Supporters say: Thanks to psychological tests since 2007, risks are lower.
  • Opponents counter: The "absolutely improbable case" of foreign soldiers storming Switzerland hardly justifies more ammunition at home.
  • The decision must still pass through Council of States and National Council.
  • Uncertain points: Effects on suicide rates [⚠️ Still to be verified], real security policy benefit [⚠️ Still to be verified].

3. Opportunities & Risks – "It's complicated"

Opportunities

  • Faster operational readiness in a crisis.
  • Less dependence on central storage (which are indeed vulnerable points in attacks).
  • Symbolic: Switzerland shows security policy vigilance.

Risks

  • Potentially more suicides or domestic incidents.
  • Political polarization instead of pragmatic security debate.
  • More symbolic politics than real security gain [⚠️ Still to be verified].

4. Looking to the Future – "What else might come?"

Short-term (1 year)

  • Heated debates in both chambers.
  • Emotional security discussion in media and family kitchens.
  • First analysis reports on risk-benefit assessments.

Medium-term (5 years)

  • If introduced: new statistics on incidents involving weapons at home.
  • Political dispute: "Did it accomplish anything?"
  • Possibly another revision – depending on situation and numbers.

Long-term (10–20 years)

  • Either an established element of Swiss militia culture – or another security policy pendulum that swings back again.
  • Possible digital alternatives (e.g., biometric locks, intelligent weapon safes).

5. Fact Check – "Is this even true?"

Solid:

  • History of abolition in 2007 fileciteturn0file0
  • Proven decline in military suicides since then.
  • Voting result (7 to 5) in the committee.

Dubious or unclear:

  • How large the real security gain would be [⚠️ Still to be verified].
  • Whether psychological tests actually reduce all risks [⚠️ Still to be verified].
  • The urgency of the measure given the threat situation [⚠️ Still to be verified].

6. Brief Conclusion

The debate about personal ammunition seems like a security policy classic: old reflexes meet new uncertainty.
What's interesting is less the ammunition itself than the political signal behind it: Switzerland is mentally arming up.
Whether this is useful or rather symbolic remains open.
Recommendation: look closely before reviving old risks for nostalgic reasons.

7. Three Critical Questions

  1. Is real security being created here – or is freedom being quietly curtailed in the name of security?
  2. Who takes responsibility if abuse or tragedies occur despite psychological tests?
  3. Why is so little transparency provided about which concrete scenarios actually justify this measure?

Done. Clear. Critical. And with a touch of wry humor.

Zurück zur Übersicht