Switzerland does only spend a very small part of it’s GDP on defense - the NATO goal is 2%, we’re spending 0.7%.
And while I personally am greatly in favor of developing nuclear weapons for any sovereign country (as it seems to be the only true guarantee for sovereignty), having an armed population is the second best thing.
Imho this gets really undervalued in terms of security - the more people have weapons, the less likely we are to get invaded.
Camels and sand like the middle eastern countries invaded by the US? Rice farmers trained in guerilla warfare like Vietnam?
If you don’t start invasion with full warfare like in WW1 and 2 it’s actually not that easy to gain control of new territory with different values and culture.
So basically, we don’t need to invest in anything more than guns for the troops. We should then save money by not buying F35s and maintaining an airforce etc.
Future of warfare is not like old times where you need to take territory by territory. You can take directly who you want.
To be honest there isn’t anything of high interest in Switzerland to be attacked for - land is small, not much natural resources and most capital is human capital and ingenuity.
Switzerland is lucky to not have natural resources or oil. That’s the primary target for most wars because most wars are driven by desire of someone to take something from others
This can be seen by reviewing the countries attacked after world war 2. I believe except Georgia , most of the wars were about land, oil or natural resources. Of course often disguised as „saving humanity from bad people“
If I were a complete total jerk, I would get Switzerland to have my own chalet in the mountains with a view of a mountain lake (St. Moritz), close to both a golf course and an airport. 
Video takes some creative liberties, but when you look at history of attempts to attack Switzerland throughout history, you might want to bet on Switzerland:
And one day you’d wake up with a drone on your head and you’d be dead and gone.
Investment wisdom Nr. #42: “Past performance is no guarantee of future results”
That’s my thought as well. Less of those extremely expensive toys, (much) more invested in HIMARS with boatloads of rockets. Store them in the mountains where they can ride out and do keekaboo attacks. Given their range, it would even help with EU defense long before an enemy would reach CH.
That’s more or less my set-up:) I’ve added to it with a bunch of pistols and a machine gun and an excessive load of ammo. I still have a long range rifle on my wish list. COS-playing can be fun! 
I suspect most my neighbours have very similar ‘just in case’ setups at home.
I’m the loudest hater of the F35 jets, but we had a national referendum on them and while it was close, we should respect the will of the people. After all, it’s what makes us a democracy, even if we democratically choose a stupid thing to do.
Yes, but relying on the general population for military strategy doesn’t seem wise to me.
Wasn’t the referendum more like approving a (very) large purchase order?
We had a couüöe of referenda regarding the mandatory military service:
And not to forget the absolutely not hypocritical:
Yes, what I’m referring to more is:
Background: after the Soviet Union collapsed, the question for the US became: how large should the US military remain without a single Soviet-scale opponent? The Clinton administration Bottom-Up Review settled on the ability to fight and win two major regional conflicts occurring nearly simultaneously—the archetypal scenarios were effectively Iraq/Persian Gulf + North Korea.
It was taken seriously enough that US law in the late 1990s explicitly described minimum military manpower as necessary to support a strategy of conducting “two nearly simultaneous major regional contingencies.”
I wonder (i genuinely don’t know) if the public debate has been had in Switzerland on the actual threats and strategy to deal with them, rather than just “buy the F35’s yes or no”.
I may misserember but my recollection is that most of the debate was “are functional fighter jets required to effectively defend Switzerland?”
The no camp had:
The yes camp had those who wanted fighter jets as part of the Swiss defence system and those who trusted the military to make the correct assessment, which they then suppported.
There have been talks about the missions those jets would carry, including during peace time though I must admit I couldn’t recall much of their substance now.
Fixed it for you (c).