Somewhere nearby, Swiss fighter pilots are bombing an enemy military commander, an airfield or a bridge – explosive war scenarios such as those designed by the Swiss Ministry of Defense (DDPS). SRF Investigativ uncovered them. Their purpose: They had to be played through by the fighter jet suppliers in the selection process for the future fighter aircraft. Air Force Chief Peter Merz comments on the Rundschau program.
SRF News: Mr. Merz. How do you explain to the Czech chief of staff why Switzerland is staging airstrikes in his country?
This is not a problem. These scenarios are detached from real security policy contexts and effective national borders. It’s just a script, has nothing to do with the Czech Republic. And: A Czech general creates scenarios himself and knows all too well how to interpret something like that.
We could have let the planes fly to the moon.
All of these attack scenarios point to the east, which fits in perfectly with the current threat situation. Wouldn’t it be honest to say: Yes, these are worst-case war scenarios?
Yes, they are worst-case war scenarios, but they have absolutely nothing to do with the cardinal direction. This document, which you shouldn’t actually have, shows Switzerland on a blank map. You added the country names yourself. We could have flown the planes to the moon, it didn’t matter.
The scenarios deal with pre-emptive strikes – i.e. attacks before an enemy attacks Switzerland. What else does this have to do with a defending army of a neutral country?
It is clear: preventive strikes such as Pearl Harbour, i.e. first strikes, are prohibited under the UN Charter. That’s why Switzerland would never do that. The scene you mentioned is an excerpt from a larger scenario in which Switzerland is already involved in a conflict. At this point, the information comes that a (renewed) attack is imminent – and the Luftwaffe wants to forestall it.
First strikes are prohibited under the UN Charter. That’s why Switzerland would never do that.
This shows the problem: If someone reads these documents who does not understand them, misinterpretations like the one here occur.
This research is a through ball for the left fighting the F-35. They say that with such scenarios, the fighter selection guidelines were intentionally tailored to this aircraft.
That too is a misinterpretation. We had designed these scenarios in advance – without knowing the aircraft types. These scripts were meant to allow manufacturers to show us what their aircraft could do. All under the same conditions. The evaluation then clearly showed that the F-35 performed best.
Final question: After these revelations, would the fighter jet still have a chance with the people if the vote was only due now?
Yes, I am convinced of that.
The conversation was led by Dominik Meier.