Norwegian Military Close to Bankruptcy, Orders Personnel to Turn In Pistols To Save Money


It seems the Norwegian military is in financial trouble! The Norwegian Ministry of Defense has issued a statement saying that they will no longer be able to equip officers and other personnel with both a rifle and pistol, and therefore pistols issued to such personnel should be turned in immediately. According to an article in AftenPosten, machine translated below:

Frustration and despair are great in the Army, not least in the professional departments and hurtigreakjonsstyrkene.

For Brigade North can no longer afford to equip officers and professional soldiers with both rifle and pistol.

It is modest Aftenposten has received, and as Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Jankov, spokesman for the Army, confirmed to the newspaper.

– We do not think this is something all right. But we have to implement the measure, for economic reasons, says Jankov.

Brigade North is in effect, most of the Norwegian Army, with offices in both the North and Rena at Elverum in southern Norway.

Would not say how much money they save without guns

Overall we are talking about a great many guns. How much defense should save this would not Lieutenant Colonel Jankov comment.

Modest comes the same day that Chief of Defence Haakon Bruun-Hanssen opposite site aldri mer.No warning that he will ask the government for more money for 2016.

Without an additional appropriation may dramatic cuts in operations in defense persist for the entire 2016, states on the website.

A clean need to save money

– Where does the order of about submitting guns?

– From the highest level, said Lieutenant Colonel Jankov.

– Why?

– This happens from a purely need to save money. We have tight budgets in the Army. The operation also with secondary weapons, and train with it, buy ammo, are very costly.

– It is therefore gone out orders, as a temporary measure, to submit pistols.Exceptions are made for those who are either looking in or going out in overseas operations, and departments that are on what we call “ongoing emergency” in which dobbeltbevæpning is required.

Torbjørn Kjos Violence, Defence Media Centre

– It means that also soldiers and officers of the Telemark Battalion, in other professional departments, and the Army’s rapid reakjonsstyrke shall submit their guns?

– Yes, they shall also submit.

According to AftenPosten’s source, Lieutenant Colonel Jankov, the number of guns to be turned in numbers in the thousands. Even the Rapid Reaction Forces must turn in their pistols, as well. Pistols, being a secondary weapon, were deemed expendable items for the budget cuts. Turning in the pistols will reduce maintenance, ammunition, and training costs, as soldiers will no longer be trained on handguns as a matter of course. However, personnel deployed to combat zones will still be issued handguns, and be given the requisite training upon deployment.

The Norwegian military has experienced a significant budget drawdown in 2016. According to the article, several sections of the Norwegian armed forces are understaffed or not staffed at all. Given Norway’s close proximity to Russia, one can only speculate how the Norwegian government believes it can secure the defense of the country against growing tensions in the East.

The Norwegian military uses the P80, their variant of the Glock 17. It was adopted in 1982.

Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He can be reached via email at


  • DanGoodShot

    Wow… That’s ruff

    • Nalln

      Seems more of an attempt to humiliate the military than an honest cost cutting measure.

  • Limonata

    It is all about oil/Nat gas. Their economy lives and dies on oil/nat gas and they do not have a diverse economy. Plus, they are a self described “welfare economy”. Their economy grew a whole 0.2% last year. They have close to zero interest rates. Cuts similar to this are happening through out the country to prioritize welfare programs.

    • One would imagine that the so called “refugees” are putting a strain on Norway’s social services as well.

      • DonDrapersAcidTrip


    • Just Sayin’

      Norwegian Glock 17 turn-ins coming soon to Aimsurplus.

    • kyphe

      lol Norway has the most diverse property portfolio in the world, they have been investing their oil wealth where others waste it.

      • George Turner

        Yes. Norway has to keep 95 percent of its money outside the country to avoid economic instability. They have $900 billion in the fund, more than enough to buy some pistols – and a couple aircraft carriers if it came to that.

  • BattleshipGrey

    I can’t imagine they’ll save enough money just from not shooting pistols. Seems like they’d save tons more money by cutting into the aircraft budget. Either way it sucks.

    • wartzilla

      The air force is already cut to the bones, they are barely flying any more, and the old first gen F-16 air frames are all cracking apart. There’s less than 20 operational F-16s left.

      The only money the defense department has left is going towards the purchase of F-35s.

      • BattleshipGrey

        Wow, I didn’t realize they already tried that. Too bad they chose a really expensive fighter to replace the F16s.

        • TB

          Yes, the Swedish Gripen was also considered, which would have been much more affordable. The choice to go with the extremely expensive F-35 instead was a political one, to appease the US.

          • BattleshipGrey

            As if the US can give them more than a pat on back for their trouble. Sad.

          • Old Fart

            US foreign policy has never been impressive…. Trump is a God sent for that matter. So was Ron Paul. Why waste all those bllions abroad? Spend them at home (fix the screwed health care and education system, fix the crippling infrastructure, clean up the environment, get rid of all the above ground power lines, make sure water in each and every household is actually perfectly potable. America is a mess if you take a very close look). At least try to get rid of the debt already… I’m so done with anything foreign policy related. Congress should severely slash the entire foreign cluster -including the Pentagon-

          • BattleshipGrey

            I don’t think Trump is aiming to change a whole lot other than do a little extra isolation (such as the wall). I would’ve loved to have Ron Paul in, but I doubt congress would’ve let him do much of what he wanted.

          • Old Fart

            I wholeheartedly second that!

          • Old Fart

            I love Gripen but after 2025 it will be outclassed by anything that will be in the air by then. Gripen is the JSF for countries like Brazil that don’t face any serious threat of war but want to have prestige to a certain degree. I predict that it will become an advanced training jet of some sort for Western countries, but the SAAB Gripen division will not survive on its own. My guess is they will merge with Boeing eventually, which makes perfectly good sense because the Gripen by design and through component life cycle support already is heavily reliant upon US technology.

          • gusto

            how dare you insult the mighty Gripen?

            most bang for your buck there is!

            Sweden has the mightiest airforce in the world, we never lost a plane in combat!

          • Old Fart

            Hold your horses my Viking brother (I’m of Swedish decent). I didn’t say Gripen sucks, but we must face reality. It will not stand a chance against the J-20, J-31, Su-35BM, T-50 aka PAK-FA and so forth. Gripen is fine (actualy overkill) for low profile countries in low profile areas of the world. And when was the last thing ‘we’ actually did something?… Gripen is a low cost solution because it is not nearly as advanced as all the aforementioned F/A’s. Even the F-15 Silent Eagle has more potential. Nobody can compete with US and Russian technology. Even the Chinese are starting to get their act seriously together. I hate to say this, but Gripen is ‘exit’ some time around 2025.

          • Bjørn Vermo

            Remember that a successful military is one that does not have to fight. A peacetime airforce needs to be highly visible, with fast planes that can intercept attempts to test how well the territory is guarded. Secondly, it needs to have credible air superiority capability. Unfortunately, the F-35 will suck at both these roles even if it should be able to perform as specified. At least Gripen is excellent in the first role. By the time the new fifth-generation planes are widely deployed, they will probably be easily detectable, so stealth will be less important again.

          • Uniform223

            “A peacetime airforce needs to be highly visible, with fast planes that can intercept attempts to test how well the territory is guarded. Secondly, it needs to have credible air superiority capability. ”

            No argument here but understand that a nations Air Force is always going to be designed and geared to the types of operations they do and the threats they are most likely to face…

            “Unfortunately, the F-35 will suck at both these roles even if it should be able to perform as specified.”

            Is that your “professional” opinion? What about countries like South Korea, Japan, and Israel purchasing and procuring F-35s for the protection of their own borders? Israel has one of the best (if not THE BEST) Air Forces in the Middle East… I would think they know what they are doing. If you think otherwise than by all means tell them that they made a mistake.

            “By the time the new fifth-generation planes are widely deployed, they will probably be easily detectable, so stealth will be less important again.”

            Stealth is already hard enough to detect now. How much “easier” could it get in the next 5 to 10 years? If a modern (current) stealth aircraft could be “easier” to detect in the near future where does that put the Gripen exactly? What becomes of the Gripen?

          • Bjørn Vermo

            You have many good points, but my angle was that different countries have different needs. One size will never be a good fit for all. I can see Israel wanting a ground attack airplane. Japan wanted the F-22, and when they were not allowed to buy it they needed a stopgap until they can get their own sixth-generation plane operative.
            The problem with current stealth is that it needs very much expensive maintenance. That is a problem if you have limited budgets.
            Stealth is obviously a big advantage if you plan surprise offensive actions, although networked distributed detection systems could reduce that advantage significantly.
            And I suppose Gripen will continue to serve well for many years, just like the F-16 has. Equip it with new anti-missile systems and other upgrades, and it will be both a credible deterrent and a good way to patrol the territory for many years to come. Then let SAAB join forces with the Japanese for the development of the next generation?

          • Uniform223

            Japan, Australia, and Israel wanted the F-22 and were more than willing purchase the aircraft and help fund any additional costs the Raptor program my incur over its service life. Unfortunately Congress passed a Federal Law banning the F-22 from export sales. This includes the aircraft its self and any licensing for foreign production. An export version of the F-22 was looked at but even that was slapped down.

            Yes… maintaining and operating stealth aircraft is more expensive than current 4th and 4.5 gen aircraft. Though the cost of maintaining and operating stealth aircraft has dropped considerably since the B-2 and F-117 (both needed special hangers to do maintenance in). The F-22 was more user and maintainer friendly than the previous and the F-35 is more so than the F-22.


            I have no doubt that the Gripen is a good aircraft but look at the situation and the possible threats and operations NATO members and close US Allies have to contend with. Maybe in countries in Africa, South America, and parts of South East Asia the Gripen would be fine. Good for defensive purposes against airforces that are under equipped and under manned. If Russia or China is literally your next door neighbor and you are a close friend of the US or NATO member, would you want the Gripen over the F-35?

          • Bjørn Vermo

            You see the usefulness from the situation we want to avoid, getting involved in actual combat with a major power. I see it from the perspective of peacetime needs to mark territory and create a serious tripwire. During the cold war, we knew very well that our garrison along the border would not delay a soviet invasion more than 30 seconds. On the other hand, the fact that it was there insured against transgressions because it would be too costly to start some minor nibbling at the territory. In that context, a slow plane with limited range is not a good match for our current needs.

          • Then why do you have an RU email?

          • iksnilol

            A Russian calling someone a “Viking brother”?

            Those pills were good, but I didn’t expect that they’d be *that* good because I am seeing unreal stuff.

          • John

            >I love Gripen but after 2025 it will be outclassed by anything that will be in the air by then

            Eh… the fact that the Gripen can land on regular highways made with whatever crappy material is used is a giant point in their favor.

            Hopefully the F35 can as well.

          • Anomanom

            Well, we have to find some way to make back some of the the money we wasted on the F-35. So we foist it off on allies that will probably never actually use it, so the fact that its kind of crappy will never matter.

          • 6.5x55Swedish

            Not really. Norewgians are just very dumb people. They thought the F35 cost as little as the Gripen… But the Gripen offer included all parts needed and the support while the F35 deal only oncluded the frame.

          • Uniform223

            And with the F-35 you get a plenty of sweet club perks. International personnel training support. Plenty of supply and logistical support. Fully loaded airframe with no additional cost of targeting pods, defensive EW pods, or EFTs. Very in depth integration into NATO air combat structures and tactics. Stealth… can’t forget about that. Sensor Fusion… that is pretty cool too.

          • 6.5x55Swedish

            Didn’t you read what I wrote, they didn’t get that in the deal they made…

          • Uniform223
          • Uniform223

            Or maybe because they knew that a Gripen stands now chance against some of the advanced Russian aircraft (they don’t have a lot yet but they are building them) and SAM systems out there.

        • Old Fart

          Air power is expensive by its very nature. Throughout history cost to replace the previous with the next has always been hideous.

        • wartzilla

          It’s for the same reason they bought ultra-modern destroyer-sized frigates for the Navy (that they can’t afford to maintain, nor can they maintain the crewing to even run them), and cutting-edge stealth corvettes that were delayed for almost 20 years, with many issues.

          There is some sort of yearning or wish fulfillment in the politicians when it comes to procurement, they desperately want to be taken seriously by other nations – but then they cannot actually divert the funding necessary to run a military capable of defending the country. Flash before function.

          • Old Fart

            Yet the soluton to all this is so easy.Just respect the 2A already and you’re got to go. NO nation in their right state of mind will even consider to attack or invade another nation with a citizenry that is armed to the teeth, well-trained and organized in many, many militia. Yes, damage done would be significant -catastrophic- but any invader would face a mass guerilla it couldn’t possibly cope with effectively and eventually rereat. Citizens have always been the most effective fighters because they defend their very own homes, protecting their very own families and communities. They will fight fiercly because they have a vested interest in doing so. Govt troops are just cattle being shifted from one to the other place on the battlefield but don’t have any real interest in seizing and holding any given piece of geography. Fighting a local guerrilla is a whole other matter. the stakes for citizens are always higher. Troops will aways redeploy to the relative comfort of their barracks eventually.

          • Bjørn Vermo

            Norwegian civilians are on the average better armed and trained than the US citicenry, and have a tradition with grandparents in the resistance against the Germans. That is still not enough to fend off an invasion, but it is certainly enough to make an occupation too expensive to be worthwhile.

          • john huscio

            “Better armed and trained than your average american suburban-urbanite” would be a more accurate statement.

          • Bjørn Vermo

            Could be, but the fact is that most people in the US do not have any military training. Not even where I live in the hills of PA. Even though fewer are accepted for mandatory service in Norway now than in my time, it still means that a majority have at least a year of training.

          • FourString

            Agreed. Plinking does not equal training.

          • mosinman

            is this just a guess? because this sounds like one

          • Anomanom

            Possibly true, in years past, but now so much of warfare is done at a distance by aircraft and missile, and by mounted troop with armoured vehicles. An armed populace is not a strong defense as it once was when everyone had to march 10000s of troops everywhere. The US has problems against guerrilla forces since we choose to limit collateral damage to civilian populations, rather than flattening neighborhoods and towns. An invading force actively trying to capture and hold territory would probably not be so discreet.

          • iksnilol

            Uh, anywhere where there’s been guerilla war someone did exactly what you said nobody is stupid enough to do :/

        • iksnilol

          Should have gone with PAK FA (with shark mouths painted on them!).

    • Old Fart

      I’d get rid of the navy instead. No country in Europe needs to maintain a navy. And let’s be honest: when was the last time navies actually did something? Wasn’t that during WW2? 😉 Today there is only one front left: the homefront. It’s all terrorists and hackers nowadays. We don’t need all that legacy force hardware. What we need is stringent border control, make safe the homefront. Trump is right.

      • BattleshipGrey

        Well, there is still Russia taking land by force. Your second sentence is similar to saying only law enforcement should have guns.

        • Old Fart

          Horse poop. Russia isn’t taking anything. No I’m not saying only LE should have guns. What I’m saying is make sure the borders our safe. That means no more Latin American illegal aliens and muslims poring in. they’re in their many millions already.

          • BattleshipGrey

            Georgia, Crimea and eastern Ukraine are three recent examples of Russia taking (or trying to in Georgia) land that didn’t belong to them. I was saying that your statement about European countries don’t “need” navies is SIMILAR to saying only LE should have guns.

      • dt

        Trump supporter? Now, everything makes sense!

        • Old Fart

          I think the choice between Trump and Hitlary is an obvious one.

          • Young Not Fart

            Sure is obvious: “NONE OF THE ABOVE”

          • Swarf

            Ham Sandwich?

    • Michel_T

      Just wait for it… By no longer issuing pistols and taking them out of circulation… their supply of 9mm ammo will become stagnant… and they’ll be paying someone to destroy it…

  • Ted Schoenling

    Um.. DUH. Norway is a member of NATO. They will rely on the US’s OVERSPENDING on military to protect them rather than keep up their end of the NATO treaty.

    • Old Fart

      I never understand why any country would want to be a member of Bilderberg’s Praetorian Guard…. anyway, firearms, not politics…

  • Don Ward

    Given the growing threat of the Russian Bear, all Norwegians will be issued bear spray instead.


    • Old Fart

      What Russian threat??? There’s only one bully state on the planet, and that’s the US of A. Where have you been since 1945?

      -the Dirty Wars
      -The Little Wars of the late 70’s and 80’s
      -The GWOT
      -The so-called Arab Spring

      What has Russia done since 1945 other than intervening upon invitation by a legitimate Afghan government in ’79? You do realize I hope that the Crimea has never been part of Ukraine, right? People actually VOTED in a plebiscite to be part of Russia again.

      Again, what Russian threat? Cutting off oil and gas maybe? Big deal, they’ll bring their goods elsewhere and it’s Europe who suffers. Not the Russians. You get what you pay for. as they say.

      Ayway, politics 😉

      • dt

        hahahahah ok man…

        To add to you list:

        Poland 1939
        Finland 1940
        China (Proxy war) 1930-1949
        Korea (Proxy war) 1950-1953
        Vietnam (Proxy war)
        70s Vietnam, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon (Proxy war) Afghanistan (so legitimate, so they put their own guy afterwards)
        80s Central Africa (Proxy war) Afghanistan
        2008 Georgia
        2014 Crimea, East Ukraine (Proxy war) Russia had signed as an exchange for Ukraine’s nuclear arsenal destruction not to interfere with Ukraine. USSR has given Crimea to SSR Ukraine (bad move but she did it).
        2011-today Syria (pro-dictatorship)

        I cannot say that Russia or USA are evil but each country has/had (for Russia) power and areas of interest.

        Saying that Russians’ (policy) is good is just a personal opinion.

        • J.T.

          You forgot one. 1968 Czechoslovakia. USSR lead the Warsaw Pact countries in an invasion to crush the Prague Spring.

          • Old Fart

            ….And we bully our “NATO allies” into submission anytime they’re not exactly in a cooperative mood…

          • ostiariusalpha

            Yeah, because when Turkey gave us the finger on helping with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, we just rolled some tanks into Istanbul & Ankara to help them see our wisdom. And when Assad stepped over BHO’s “red line” by using chemical weapons, the European NATO members just fell in line to enforce a No-Fly Zone because they were so intimidated by our ruthless reputation. Oh, wait, neither of those things happened because almost everything you’ve said is idiotic horse-pucky.

          • hydepark

            Well we did, in my opinion, help construct the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s government to force them into a more NATO / Euro friendly direction. Plenty of people are dying as a result.

          • Edohiguma

            There is still no proof Assad did that. It’s just as likely the so called “rebels” did it.

          • Nathan Alred

            And how many of our allies have been killed during these “bullying” sessions?

          • Old Fart

            What happened to public opinion?

          • ostiariusalpha

            Public opinion is just fine. You get to spout off your nonsense, and we get to tell you that we not drinking your Kool-aid. That’s how it’s supposed to work.

          • milesfortis

            Well, you can have your own opinions but you aren’t entitled to your own facts.
            When you realize no one here accepts your anti-american bullshit at the sum total of human history maybe it’ll sink in that you’re not the end all – be all of historians.

          • Edohiguma

            Many. Look at the deaths of non-US soldiers in the past 2 wars the US started (and lost.)

          • dt

            Not the only one I forgot but this is one of the darkest moment of humanity…

        • TJbrena

          You forgot Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Transnistria, Abkhazia, and Nagorno-Karabakh. I may be forgetting a few others, too.

          • dt

            Yeah, Prague Spring in Czechoslovakia… We should read the whole wikipedia to make a proper list…

        • My doctor was 6 when the Russians decided to step into Czechoslovakia. She has some things to say about Russian aggression.

          • Old Fart

            So have many Vietnamese, Arabs and Afghans about us. Let’s talk plainly: since the demise of the USSR the US have been behaving very aggressively. In retrospective, what have the Russians been doing since? Not much [if at all]. Your turn…

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            Putin has basically re-ignited the Cold War with the re-establishment of long range Bear bomber patrols, interference in the air space of other nations, harassment of American ships and planes, sending a sub into Swedish waters and simulating a nuclear attack against them as well.

            So yeah, not much.

          • hydepark

            The United States is guilty of the same and worse aggression. One of the reasons oil and gas are so cheap. Destroy the Russian economy with one market.

          • gusto

            and people thought we Swedes were silly in the 80s (even after one sub ran aground) said it was only seals and whatnot making noises

            If the papers for us to finally join NATO is signed tomorrow it is 40 years to late. (common rumour is that we have pre signed papers at our national bunker just as there are papers signed by us at the nato HQ)

          • I’m not saying were isolationists, but I had to twist my face up a bit when you said the only Russian foreign intervention since 1945 was in ’79.
            Cmon dude.

          • 624A24

            About the Vietnamese. What about the “re-education camps” after the north won?
            And what about Afghanistan? Coalition forces toppled the Taleban regime, which had denied basic rights to females, practised stoning, amputation and arbitrary execution. Coalition forces brought a semblance of law and rights, reconstructed vital infrastructure and brought education, clean water and electricity to more Afghans than they ever had.

          • Edohiguma

            The Taliban are back and they are retaking the country as we speak. Helmand is back under Taliban control.

            Well done US and coalition. You achieved nothing.

          • Uniform223

            Don’t blame the US and the Coalition for the the Afghan Army and Government’s complete incompetency.

          • Martin Buck

            And gave the country to an evil gang of drug dealing politicians. Was the CIA implicated in this? Can’t say, but their record in South America and Vietnam doesn’t give any confidence. The return of the Taliban and now Daesh shows how popular they are with the people. As smart as dismantling the Sunni Iraqi Army to become ISIL. And here’s a hint: Nobody anywhere ever asked to be invaded and colonized, and this type of operation will be resisted to the death anywhere it is attempted. Somebody should grow a few brain cells. Just a few. That’s all it takes.

          • De Facto

            I think the chechnyans might disagree.

          • Again let’s drop the politics and stay on topic.

          • Evan

            Georgia and Ukraine spring immediately to mind

          • Uniform223

            I KNEW soldiers from the Georgian Army. Some of them were good guys and soldiers and for the time I knew them was proud to call them friend.

          • iksnilol

            Rule of thumb for Eastern Europe: Nobody likes Russians except for Serbs and Romanians… and nobody likes Serbs and Romanians that much either.

          • gusto

            and us nords can bicker tremendously amongst ourself, and have fought some horrible wars and invaded each other but if the russians step up we will unite.

            and it really is quite low of them to do so when bearing in mind that Russia was really founded by Rus people of frekkin Sweden.

            if only good ol’ charlie 12 hadn’t slipped into a coma we might have crushed them for all eternity and Europe would have been such a better place

        • john huscio

          You forgot the sino Russian border war of 1968

        • Tom

          To be fair the Russians only entered Georgia after the Georgians started shelling civilians. I am not claiming Russia is some sort of benevolent force and maybe they would have done so anyway but the Georgians gave them an excuse.

          And okay the Russians are supporting Assad but the west and the Us in particular support plenty of autocratic/unpleasant regimes so that one I think is more of a no score draw.

          • dt

            As I mentioned every great power has its interests. The closest you are to its power the more you feel it. It is also easy to hide your paramilitary forces into civilian area and when you draw the enemy’s fire then your parental power steps in and intervenes. I don’t say that Georgians cared about the civilians of the russian-friendly population. Probably the fell to the trap very easy and eagerly.

          • Tom

            Oldest trick in the book for insurgents. The Georgians basically had the choice of attacking and killing civilians, incurring the wraith of Russia or doing nothing and seeing the northern provinces break away.

            Of course it took western Europe hundreds of years and many many wars (with the resulting ethnic cleansing) to come to its current borders it would be very naive to not expect the same to happen in eastern Europe.

          • alari

            The georgians returned fire to the place where the russian supported militants opened fire before – they followed russian tactic of shooting from between civilian buildings. Examples of this russian tactics can be seen in Ukraine quite often and the reason for this is that the russian propaganda can blame the other side afterwards and some people believe that. Here is one case of this

          • Tom

            Its a common tactic in insurgency/civil war scenarios. Basically if you return fire you inevitable kill civilians and so look bad and further the insurgents propaganda and if you do nothing then you have already lost. Basically you are between a rock and a hard place.

          • Uniform223

            Then Russia steam rolled into Georgia killing more civilians than Georgian shellings in the disputed Ossetian region.

          • Tom

            That is I think I fair point. In the interest of balance I would say however that since pretty much no western media or politician admitted the Russians were “provoked” I am skeptical about casualty figures (from ether side) as simple put both sides had too much to gain by inflating them.

        • Edohiguma

          Georgia and Ukraine have their roots in Russian minorities wanting to get away from the messed up places they were stuck in. Right of self determination of a people, which the US and EUSSR apparently do not acknowledge for Russians.

          China was not a Soviet proxy war.
          Korea was not a Soviet proxy war.
          Egypt, Syria and Lebanon were not Soviet proxy wars.

          Now in Syria they’re pro-dictatorship? Well, duh, after your president first was pro-ISIS and then wanted the “moderate” Taliban to help against ISIS.

          Afghanistan? They were called in for help.

          • ostiariusalpha

            BHO wants the Taliban to fight ISIS in Syria? Cool story, bruh. Did you get that from Russia Today?

          • Uniform223

            If called in for help you mean…

            Fly in a group of disguised special forces group into country, raid and assassinate government officials then use chemical weapons… than I guess that counts (hope you can sense the sarcasm). Lets not forget about all those “toe popper” Soviet Russia left behind.

          • Miguel Raton

            Keep drinking the Soviet Kool-Aid my friend, it’s so refreshing! ::)

      • Rock or Something

        In addition, the Hungarian Revolution of 1956.

        The Russian Soviets also put immense pressure on Tito’s Yugoslovia to fall into the Warsaw Pact fold, but were not entirely successful. Tito played of both sides to maintain his independence.

        I don’t pretend to think the Russian’s don’t have their own personal self-interest, but firearms, not politics. Until it happens anyways.

        • iksnilol

          “were not entirely successful”?

          You mean weren’t successful at all?

      • SP mclaughlin

        Nothing says “fair vote” at the end of an AK74 barrel.

        • Old Fart

          They’re ethnic Russians and wanted to be part of Russia. No need for gun boat diplomacy there.

          • Evan

            Right, in a “fair vote” with Russian soldiers looking over their shoulders. Because Putin is just such a nice guy and wouldn’t do anything shady ever, right? Just ask Georgia (the Tblisi one, not the Atlanta one)

      • A.WChuck

        Bernie, is that you?

        • Old Fart

          No? Who’s Bernie?

          • Nathan Alred

            Great, ignorant of domestic politics as well.

          • Old Fart

            Are you going to defend an actual argument or are you just keeping me under the loop and being cocky?

          • 624A24

            He might not know about the elections from Moscow.

          • 1911a145acp

            I think just ignorant will suffice……

          • milesfortis

            That’s not ignorance. That’s an example of sheer stupidity.

          • He’s Russian so I wouldn’t expect him to know our domestic politics.

      • KestrelBike

        Sigh…. Kremlin welfare-trolls found TFB again. I’d rather keep getting the errors than this propagarbage.

        • Old Fart

          Have some more Reagan and Bush Kool-Aid. Cheers!

          • Thirst_quencheR

            Yep, rounding up 22,000 Poles and offing them in Katyn then blaming the favourite Soviet straw man of “Nazis” is definitely American “Kool-Aid”

            But please, do tell us how the US is such an evil bully agressor state.

          • Old Fart

            Where’ve you been the last 2 decades or so??

          • 624A24

            Que surprise, you mentioned neo-Nazis in Ukraine. Guess the old Soviet strawman is still around.

          • Wolfgar

            The mess we created in Libya, Iraq, Syria and other middle eastern nations is nothing to brag about. There’s plenty of egg on both sides to be ashamed of.

          • Tom

            Too right, human history is not pretty and that another nation may have done worse does not excuse your own its transgressions.

            That being said the sins of the father should not be visited on the son.

          • De Facto

            What Kool-Aid? No one here has said the US is isolationist. YOU on the other hand have made the ludicrous and completely fallacious claim that “there is only one bully state on the planet” since 1945 – despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you seem to think that the USSR/Russia was/is just a peaceful isolationist country beset on all sides by evil capitalists. You wouldn’t happen to be a professor at an American University would you?

          • No politics——-

          • I don’t know if you realize it or not having been here a short time. It’s great you are proud of your country but we have a hard rule here at TFB and that is no political discussions period no exceptions.
            That said please stay on topic and rop the politics.

      • Nathan Alred

        You know that “formenting” isn’t a real word in English, right?

        • Old Fart

          that was a typo 😉 It’s fomenting. My fingers sometimes rest on my kb and I accidentally squeeze ’em. It happens.

      • Don Ward


      • 1911a145acp

        Yes Russia, has been completely well behaved and has done nothing since 1945? You must have been kicked in the head by a moose Old Fart…..

  • Carl

    Thanks Obama

    • Old Fart

      for being the most aggressive President EVER….

      • Evan

        In what way? By throwing away victories in Iraq and Afghanistan? By retreating on missile defense, thus emboldening Russia? By waging a phony “war” against the Islamic State where virtually no ordinance is actually dropped? By making empty threats to Assad?

        • Danny Wildman

          You have a funny definition of “victory”.

  • anonymous

    Currently available on Netflix . . .

    Okkupert (original title)
    45min | Drama, Thriller | TV Series (2015– )

    In the near future, Norway is occupied by Russia on behalf of the European Union, due to the fact that the newly elected environmental friendly Norwegian government has stopped the all important oil- and gas-production in the North Sea.

    Creators: Karianne Lund, Jo Nesbø, Erik Skjoldbjærg
    Stars: Henrik Mestad, Eldar Skar, Ane Dahl Torp | See full cast & crew »

    • 68Whiskey

      Quality program, though I find it a little jarring how quickly the characters slip in between speaking Norwegian, English, and Russian.

      Any Norwegians care to comment? Is this a regular speech pattern?

  • Some Dude

    I’m sure that the refugees will be glad to hear this wonderful news.

    • Old Fart

      You mean the jihadists making war in Europe’s cities?

      • Some Dude

        Yeah. Those nice guys who cannot keep their hands to themselves.

        • Old Fart

          Europe is going to the dogs rapidly. Thanks to the politicians that opened its doors. Complete idiots….

  • Rock or Something

    lol at the tags for this article.

    • Old Fart


  • FelixD

    So how does storing their pistols save money? How much money can they save? One can understand a reduction in training ammo, but why simply turn them in?

    • Menger40

      Maybe they’re going to sell a bunch of them off.

      • De Facto

        Export to a nation friendly to handguns! I’d love to have some more foreign pistols!

    • Tom

      I think its less “turn in your pistols so we save money” and more “we are not going to spend resources on training you with pistols” so they save on ammo, spares, and armoring. Whether the saving is significant enough to have an effect remains to be seen.

    • John

      Saves on the cost of maintaining and loading a bunch of pistols, instead handing them out as operational requirements.

      Don’t a lot of soldiers complain that 90% of their gear 90% of the time isn’t used and just wears them out? For the time being, Norway got rid of a giant weight on the leg.

  • Old Fart

    This topic has derailed

    • claymore

      By you.

      • Old Fart

        Yeah yeah, blame me. There’s a reaction to every action, dude. 😉

        • claymore

          Yea pass the blame onto someone else lib.

  • Wetcoaster

    re the Russians, There’s that old joke about Swedes willing to fight to the last Finn, and the Russians would have to cross both Finland and Sweden to reach Norway. That said, I can’t imagine they save all that much in the grand scheme of things with this move.

    • Tassiebush

      Nah Norway loops round the top of Sweden and Finland and shares a border with Russia

  • MAF

    So… coming soon to AIM surplus?

  • Wolfgar

    Just like the US the world is divided. If a country cannot afford pistols for it’s military I would definitely take a serious look at how money and taxes are implemented. Socialism just doesn’t work. Long live the republic.

    • iksnilol

      Socialism works and the pulling pistols is a PR stunt to get everybody to feel bad for them so that they can get their budget returned so that they can blow it on c̶o̶c̶a̶i̶n̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶h̶o̶o̶k̶e̶r̶s̶ the F-35 (again).

      • Wolfgar

        I preferred my country before we took up socialism but that is another argument. I think you would get more bang for the buck with hookers and cocaine than you will with the F-35.

        • iksnilol


          Hookers and cocaine > F-35

          Every day, no days off.

  • dP

    The problem here is internal invoicing within the department of defense. Technically, FLO (Forsvarets Logistikkorganisasjon; the Defense Logistics Organization) owns all the equipment used by the armed forces, and the different branches of the armed forces have to lease all their equipment from the FLO. They’re simply moving imaginary money around inside the same organization. Recently, the army’s budget has been cut, due (at least in part) to cost overruns in the F-35 project, resulting in that the army has to save money by not leasing their own equipment. I guess you have to be a politician to understand the logic behind this…

    • G0rdon_Fr33man

      This answer should be higher.

      I suspect the army is playing the media in their favour, to raise awareness on how the Army has lost real purchasing power the last decade by defence cuts. This move saves very little money, but have huge PR costs.

    • Bjørn Vermo

      This is purely a political ploy to get increased budgets (which are needed). Prestige purchases like new frigates and the F-35 have bound up the budgets in expensive hardware. There is not enough money for a credible defense of the country, but always enough for prestigious international missions.

    • The Bellman

      Thank god someone knows what’s actually going on rather than just going into histrionics about socialism and how it’s the darkies’ fault.

      • Bobd06

        That too ! 😉

      • All the Raindrops

        Still, they’d have more money without all the resources allocated to migrant crisis

    • endrelunde

      Where do you get this info from? The Army has not had a single krona cut from the operating budget because of the F-35. All F-35-costs are so far being covered through dedicated procurement funds, and those have not exceeded their planned levels.

  • anonymouse

    “shouldn’t have spent so much money buying fancy HKs eh?” – great tag!!

    To be honest the lack, or lack-thereof, of a secondary weapon isn’t really very important. Most nations, including other major NATO nations, don’t issue secondary weapons as standard. I also wouldn’t be surprised if Aftenpost has got this one wrong, it wouldn’t be the first time, and the savings involved would be so minimal it seems hard to believe anyone would bother to go through the hassle.

    • Tom

      I think its quite clear this is a “peace time measure” as we have seen in countless wars before when the brown stuff hits the fan all sorts of things that have been sitting in storage for years come out into the light of day.

  • David Lowrey

    We will happy buy your used and out of service firearms and parts. The us gun market is one of the best ways for any military offload a lot of equipment and make back a decent amount of money.

  • Earl

    That is fine. When budgets must be cut, cut. The military cannot expect to be held harmless. The simple facts of life are that if it comes down to push and shove, Russia will win. They are superior in all areas. Pistols will not do diddly squat. Sooner or later old Europe will have to come to terms with Russia and China. They have the resources and men. Old Europe and the US much less the lesser nation states…no.

    • john huscio

      They don’t have have the leadership and I’d wager that alot of their equipment is 30 years old and decaying.

    • Joshua

      Honestly, if Russia invaded Norway the US would get involved.

      That’s the issue, the world doesn’t want the US to play world police, yet NATO cannot defend itself without the US.

  • Thirst_quencheR

    Paging iksnilol, please report to the nearest courtesy computer.

    • iksnilol

      What is of need, comrades?

      I can translate the article, though it is night now so I will do it tomorrow if I have the time.

      General gist at the moment is:

      -Brigade North (mechanized infantry including armor and artillery) is turning in pistolas to save money/time

      -Peeps going to hotboxes (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) will still receive pistols and accompanying training

      -Everythang is okay since, get real, if you can’t handle a problem with an HK416 and 210 rounds of 5.56 then 34 rounds of 9mm through a Glock won’t likely save you. Of course they said it much nicer. They said that the primary weapon is considered enough considering Norways threat level (AKA the occasional rabid moose).

      -They won’t say how much is saved, though it is assumed to be a four figure number of pistols so figure how much ammo/parts/service those need.

      -It is a temporary thingy, the whole giving up pistols.

      -Army is getting its budget slashed in 2016 (think of the Army’s budget as a naked teenager in a horror movie)

      -Jankov (millitary spokesman) thinks the situation isn’t “alright”.

      -Soldiers aren’t happy and some are even worried.

      -“Jankov” sounds kinda Russian, maybe inside agent? (my own speculation)

      • Tom

        You sir get an up vote simple for the rabid moose.

      • Thirst_quencheR

        Thanks for the run down!

      • FarmerB

        Except there are places in the sandpit where you have to leave your 416 behind and if you don’t have a backup, you’re in trouble (I know friends in Kandahar hospital who’ve have to train pistols on a “patient”) so make sense to issue them to hotspots. I just don’t think it’s a good idea to have somebody in the military for years and then try to teach them to shoot pistol in 10 days pre-deployment training..

        • iksnilol

          I completely agree.

          This pistol thing is just a stunt to get more money IMO. They’ll trot out the poor soldier who the stingy government won’t give a pistol to in the hopes of getting their old budget back.

  • The Norwegians are becoming a prelude to how the F-35 will wipe the country out without ever firing a shot. This should be a wake up call for every country looking to buy into the F-35 and think long and hard. Their are better alternatives to the F-35 such as the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, Gripen NG, Advance Super Hornet/Growler, Block 60 F-16 and F-15SE/SA. Countries are realizing what a disaster the F-35 is and are slowly backing away from it and going to alternatives to the F-35.

    • Old Fart

      All of those you mentioned are inferior at least on paper to what the F-35 will be able to put on the table. And will get their butts whipped by the time the gen5’s will be up and running. There are not many gen5 jets out there. Only the F-35, J-20, J-31 and T-50 aka PAK-FA fit that bill and they’re not even really in LRIP yet. We have no other choice than to go through with the F-35. All I can say is that we should hope for the best and make sure it doesn’t go the F-22 route. 30 support hours to every flight hour is simply unacceptable. No wonder Congress pulled the plug on that one. Other side of the coin is the question whether we really need that kind of capability given the usually tasked missions during usual deployments. Of course that is a dangerous assumption because the world may very well look rather different from the one we live in now in say, 10 years. Air superiority is key to each and every military operation, so there really is no other viable option than to go for the F-35.

      • The F-35 is a POS and is bankrupting Militaries who have to sacrifice everything just to pay for the F-35. Norway for example had to postone indefinably to upgrade the Leopard 2A4 tanks to sacrafice paying for the F-35. On top of that the F-35 can’t even Dogfight and beat the F-16 it was meant to replace. Read the War is boring report on it and you will see how BADLY the F-35 failed against the F-16. All those I listed such as the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, Gripen NG, Advance Super Hornet/Growler, Block 60 F-16 and F-15SE/SA are better alternatives to the F-35 and would easily wipe the F-35, though the SU-35 would eat the F35 for breakfast, lunch or dinner. So if you think you can justify bankrupting a military to pay for a plane that can’t even dogfight it’s way in or out of a target, then your as delusional as nutjob.

        • mosinman

          the F-35 is not a POS. it isn’t surprising an early block of the F-35 lost to the F-16 (which is an excellent dog fighter with very high maneuverability) in a dogfight

          • Vitor Roma

            Considering how much it costs, the F-35 is a POS, worst bang for the buck. It is a very mediocre airplane physically that has a fancy suite of electronics and sensors.

          • mosinman

            except it won’t be once the program is finished

          • The F-35 lost to the F-16. If it can’t beat the F-16 then it sure says alot about the F-35.

          • mosinman

            really? what does it say? that the F-16 is no slouch in a dogfight? the earlier block F-35s aren’t preforming to full capabilities? That this was one scenario done once? That the F-35 is still in development?

          • Go read the Article from War is boring and the actual report from the Test pilot who wrote it

          • mosinman

            i’ve already seen it. it’s just one perspective and is hardly a condemnation of the Jet

          • Uniform223

            Go and read the actual report and not some click-bait headline piece



            The test was designed to stress the high AoA control laws during operationally representative

            maneuvers utilizing elevated AoAs and aggressive stick/pedal inputs. The evaluation focused on the

            overall effectiveness of the aircraft in performing various specified maneuvers in a dynamic

            environment. This consisted of traditional Basic Fighter Maneuvers in offensive, defensive, and neutral

            setups at altitudes ranging from 10,000 to 30,000 feet MSL.

            The pilot flew the aircraft and went back to the engineer and programmers with observations and recommendations.

            >-The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage in a turning fight and operators would quickly learn that

            it isn’t an ideal regime. Pitch rates were too slow to prosecute or deny weapons. Loads remained below

            limits and implied that there may be more maneuverability available to the airframe. Rl: Increasing

            pitch rate and available Nz would provide the pilot more options, especially considering the inherent

            energy deficit.

            >-Significant anti-spin control authority has been demonstrated on this and other high AOA flights. The

            effect is abrupt, responsive, and powerful whereas pilot input seems to be sluggish and gradual. R4:

            Consider increasing pilot yaw rate control authority.

            This is like a test driver taking a car around a track a few times then going back to the engineers and mechanics and then telling them what parts of the car needs to be tweaked.

            That test was done back in January of 2015. Most likely there has been more flight tests to further improve and refine the aircraft’s flight control laws to make the aircraft more suitable for a WVR engagement.

          • mosinman

            To further my point, that’s as stupid as saying the F-15 is a POS because it would lose a dogfight to a MiG-29

          • Uniform223

            Here why don’t you read actually read it and understand the objective behind it?


          • Uniform223

            What about an F/A-18? In some situations, aspects, and flight envelopes the Hornet can beat the F-16 and vice versa. Does that mean BOTH aircraft are equally a POS?

      • iksnilol

        Here’s the thing: AT LEAST THEY PUT SOMETHING ON THE TABLE! The F-35 is like an early access videogame that never gets finished.

        • Uniform223

          Well the F-35 reached IOC with the USMC last year and is still set for IOC with USAF later this year. F-35s with block 3i software are already on the manufacturing lines and a few have already been delivered to the USAF. The JPO is already testing block 3F software.

          I would say the F-35 is more like video game that will get plenty of additional content. Damn you World of Warcraft!

          • Sianmink

            And it’s still having problems with the gun and doesn’t have the software integration for half the weapons it was designed to use.
            Also it’s apparently a pig in a dogfight due in no small part to very bad rearward visibility and subpar maneuverability.

          • Uniform223

            Its called concurrency. The F-16 had it… the F-35 has it.

            Also that “dogfight” that mentioned wasn’t a dogfight at all. It was a flight test to tweak the aircraft’s flight control laws. If you actually read the entirety of it you will see the pilots observations and recommendations to the engineers and programmers.


            watch at time index 5:20

            That test was done back in January 2015. Its highly likely since than that more similar test flights have been flown to further refine the command and control laws of the aircraft at different flight regimes, envelopes, and profiles.

    • Uniform223

      Its funny how SO MANY peoples on the internet is saying that countries are backing away from the F-35 (just because people keep saying it doesn’t mean its true) realizing the “alternatives” (I put that in quotes because anyone who has done ANY HONEST type of research knows that THERE ISN’T) but so conveniently fail to see two things…
      >Production rates are GOING UP
      >Partner and costumer nations will start receiving their aircraft as early as 2018
      >Though there are minor delays, IOC times frame are still within acceptable limits and in reach

  • Vitor Roma

    The funny thing is that they are part of the F-35 program.

    • Old Fart

      Yep, everybody that made their F-35 bed needs to sleep in it.

    • 6.5x55Swedish

      Yeah, you need to be stupid to be in the F35 program, they are stupid, very stupid. They honestly thought they chould get an ari fleet of F35 for the same low price as an equally big fleet of Gripens. They never thought of asking what was included in the deal and bought planes with no engien.

      • Uniform223

        Well given the recent trends and each successive lot of airframe and engine has steadily been going down… yes; the F-35 would be more cost effective than a big fleet of Gripens. BTW how many of those Gripen Es are currently flying?

        • 6.5x55Swedish

          Please tell me more about how 22 F35 planes cost less than 22 Gripen planes…

          • Uniform223

            Its called economies of scale and fly away cost. In the long run the F-35 will actually become more cost effective and affordable than the Gripen. We are seeing this with the F/A-18 Super Hornet production line. As the production of the Super Hornet is slowing down the price to actually purchase and operate the aircraft is going up. That is why Boeing is trying to secure more foreign buys to keep the line open. Same with France’s Dassault Rafale. It was advertised to be more affordable than other aircraft during India’s MMRCA competition. India however found out the hard way and the long way that the Rafale was not the most affordable aircraft.

            One can look at the F-16 as an example. The only reason why the F-16 was/is so affordable is because there are so many users of the aircraft and having multiple users means larger and better logistical and training support. Back then the LWF Program that lead to the F-16 was seen as an expensive gamble to both US and the NATO countries who agreed to be partners and buyers within the program.

  • TheNotoriousIUD

    “How much can one pistol cost? Ten dollars?”

    • 6.5x55Swedish

      Ammo and training costs a lot. Keep in mind that they thought they bought thier F35 for the same price as the Gripen without even looking if all parts were included. Turns out some of the most important parts of the plane was not part of the deal. So they basically threw money away.

      • Michel_T

        Yes, they need to save $ to pay for all these UN seminars Norwegian politicians have signed up for…

  • Old Fart

    We pay for their security so they can pay for their Nanny State. It needs to stop. Europe needs to stop sucking up to us and get its own act together. I’m tired of us conducting foreign policy.

  • john huscio

    Looks like “occupied” isn’t so far fetched after all…..

  • hydepark

    Not sure if it’s been mentioned yet but I wonder if this is similar at all to the political push by the left in Germany to disarm incrementally through false budget manipulation.

  • Ezra Bristow

    Worth remembering that a significant portion of the Norwegian military is comprised of young guys doing their mandatory year of service – issuing sidearms to every Kjell, Jon and Eirik is probably a good way to get stuff broken.

    Norway is also sitting on a rainy day oil fund that was worth at least at trillion dollars. Might be they’re just mothballing the guns until they are needed.

  • 1911a145acp

    Not possible! They CAN”T be broke! Completely socialized everything and 65% tax rates, can’t they just WANT guns and ammo enough into existence?

    • mosinman

      The evil rich bourgeoisie must have found another tax loophole!

    • iksnilol

      36% tax rate you ignorant something.

      + we got all the cool guns, both MP7s and P90s. Can’t beat that. This is just Army whining about their slashed budget by doing a PR stunt (which I can’t blame them for, nobody likes slashed budgets).

      • ProLiberty82

        Wait, when did we get the P90? I know it was in the tryouts in the early 00’s but not that any units got them?

        • iksnilol

          IIRC the coast guard used them and MP7s.

          Possibly the P90 got phased out, I dunno.

      • Squirreltakular

        Not sure you can use “we” if they aren’t available to civilians.

        • iksnilol

          Sure, but are P90s (not the semi auto ones) and MP7s available to civvies in the US? Just as bad is what I am trying to say.

          • Squirreltakular

            Gotcha. Good point.

          • iksnilol

            To be honest, I don’t know why anyone would bother with MP7s.

            Weak, expensive and rare. I mean, I don’t even like 5.7×28 but it is much more available.

  • Danny Wildman

    Good good… end the welfare.

    • iksnilol

      And watch the crime rise now that people have an incentive to risk their lives and whatnot for basic survival.

      • Danny Wildman

        Maybe they’ll learn to defend themselves instead of stupidly entrusting their safety to the state.

        • iksnilol

          You’d sink in water.

          The criminals, when they’ve got no incentive to do crime (IE their basic needs are covered) they get no incentive to actually do something bad. It is cheaper to pay the bare minimum so that they can survive than it is to pay to repair the damage they do.

          • Danny Wildman

            Then handle it with private charity.

            Government welfare is nothing more than a legalized money-for-votes scheme.

          • FarmerB

            Only problem with that is that many criminals won’t settle for the minimum (welfare) wage. You don’t get to be top dog doing that – you want the chicks and the cars and the wasta – you gotta have cash to burn. This you don’t get from the social security office.You might placate the lazy criminals, but not all.

          • iksnilol

            Personal experience tells me the contrary.

            Few people are in it to become top dogs. And those who are don’t rob and mug people. They rather smuggle/make drugs.

          • FarmerB

            Still being criminal 🙂

          • iksnilol

            Yes, but those people don’t really cause much damage.

  • Joshua

    Good thing they purchased those over priced HK416’s for $2,500 each.

  • ProLiberty82

    Well they can join a pistol club and get a pistol license and training like the rest of us here in Norway, yes it sucks that the state removes part of the national defense capabillity

  • Evan

    I know the US Marines do a lot of joint training with the Norwegians. I read somewhere that their defense strategy in case of a Russian invasion was basically to have the Marines bail them out. I don’t know how true that is, but Norway didn’t exactly maintain a robust military before now.

    By the way, that translation is horrible.

    • Phil Hsueh

      Yes, we do, we hold regular exercises in Norway and we store equipment in caves throughout Norway that we’d fall on if there ever was a war (with Russia). There was an article out recently that stated that we are renewing that commitment and putting more time, effort, and materiel to that and, I think, newer and better gear in the aforementioned caves. The interesting thing about that is Norway has actually been bearing the brunt of the cost of keeping these caves running, apparently we wanted to pull out or at least reduce our presence in Norway but then Norway said they’d cover all or most of the cost if we stayed.

      • Evan

        I was West Coast, I never got to go to Norway. I have a couple friends who did though. Sounds awesome. I like Norwegian girls. I met three of them at a bar once, and the fat one was about a 7. My idiot friend ruined it all by proposing marriage to one though. what a shame.

        • Phil Hsueh

          Pity that you never got to go, I was lucky enough to go one time for AT instead of 29 Palms and I was not only West Coast (MCAS Miramar) but a Reservist to boot. It was one of the best ATs that I ever went to, granted that anywhere that wasn’t The Stumps was a good AT, and I got to celebrate St. Patrick’s day (with a Guiness) at the airport in Ireland for a brief layover.

          • Evan

            I was STATIONED in 29 Palms. We didn’t go anywhere (besides, you know, Iraq). We were slated to go to Bridgeport once, but that got canceled, which I was pretty happy about because Bridgeport doesn’t sound fun, my understanding is that it’s the only place in the Corps worse than the Stumps. I always thought that only East Coast MEUs did Norway, I didn’t know anyone from the West Coast went there at all. I never did a MEU either, I don’t think 7th Marines does MEUs at all.

          • Phil Hsueh

            I’m sorry to hear that you were stationed in The Stumps, it was bad enough that my MOS school was there and had to do several CAXs there, I couldn’t imagine what it must have been like to have been actually stationed out there. I think that the only good thing about 29 Palms was that it’s relatively close to Vegas, we’d always take a day trip out to Vegas or Laughlin during CAX.

            As far as Norway goes, I went as part of Operation Battle Griffin but I have no idea of who gets to go and if a West Coast unit going was normal or not. Then again, the reason my unit got to go was because, technically, we were an East Coast unit. While I drilled out of Miramar my unit was actually headquartered in Boston and what I was assigned was just a det and not the unit proper. So, when we went to Battle Griffin we were joined by members of the unit proper, something that we didn’t do that often except for the occasional AT.

            It’s funny that you mention being slated to go Bridgeport but having it canceled. A friend of mine who was in 4th LAR told me a story once about how his unit was slated to go to cold weather training once after years of training in 29 Palms, that cold weather training got canceled and they shipped out to Kuwait instead for Desert Shield/Storm and more desert.

          • Evan

            Yeah, 29 Palms is awful, but going to Vegas is fun. I got to shoot a Thompson at one of those machine gun tourism places once, which was awesome even though they insisted on loading it and charging it for me (despite the fact that I was an active duty Marine infantryman), and the general debauchery is pretty cool too.

            I never got to go anywhere but Iraq. I was in 03-07, when they weren’t doing much else, but Norway (or Australia for that matter) would’ve been nice. Oh well.

            I can’t imagine anyone WANTS to go to Bridgeport, including officers. I imagine battalion commanders will come up with any ridiculous excuse they can to skate out of it. My BC’s excuse was something about not having enough NVGs to train the whole battalion or something dubious sounding like that.

  • Edohiguma

    That money is clearly needed for more “important” things. Like shoveling it into “help” for all the “refugees”, who say things like “Norwegian women ask to be raped because of how they dress.”

  • He is Russian

  • It is on the line so let’s not cross over into full on politics. Thanks

  • Sianmink

    “Given Norway’s close proximity to Russia, one can only speculate how the Norwegian government believes it can secure the defense of the country against growing tensions in the East.”
    Like most European countries, I’m sure they expect the US to come running, for free, if they should ever face a situation that their skeletonized and undertrained militaries can’t handle.

    • Tom

      Well that is kind of the point of NATO.

      Tommy Rødningsby
      Tor Arne Lau-Henriksen
      Kristoffer Sørli Jørgensen
      Trond Petter Kolset
      Claes Joachim Olsson
      Trond André Bolle
      Christian Lian
      Simen Tokle
      Andreas Eldjarn
      Siri Skare

      Above are the names of the Norwegians who gave their lives in Afghanistan as part of the NATO invasion launched as a result of 9/11. Sure to be heartless Norway’s casualties pale in comparison to those of the US, UK, Canada, France and Germany but they still went to war because when al-Qaeda attacked the US they did not just attack some buildings and murder innocent people they attacked the very idea or democracy and freedom.

      As Americans you are truly fortunate that for the most part your people have been insulated from the horrors of occupation at the hands of your enemies, much of Europe, including Norway, has not been so lucky. If history teaches us one things its that we need to stand together against tyranny.

      • Sianmink

        The point is that NATO has no military relevance without the USA. The vast majority of European members do not meet their readiness requirements, nor do they have any intention of ever doing so.

        • Tom

          A fair point. There will always be those be they individuals or governments who will seek to hide behind others. They take a sort of delight in their moral superiority whilst others do the dirty work.

          To quote George Orwell “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

          And that is what much of Europe has done, hidden behind the US (and to a lesser extent the UK) and its nukes. This has allowed them to spend money on welfare, education and health programs etc.

          None the less European soldiers have made sacrifices in defense of freedom and that should not be forgotten.

  • Swarf

    Can you explain why you keep saying “fake refugees”?

    Genuinely curious.

    • iksnilol

      He believes that people travel half the world, abandoning their lives, so that they can rape white Norwegain women in peace.

      • Swarf

        That’s what I figured, but I’m trying to give the benefit of the doubt.

      • Gjert Klakeg Mulen

        Not for the sake of raping, but for the sake of welfare checks, don’t put words into my mouth.

        I will get around to answering with a more thought out answer than simply throwing around statements, but I don’t have time right now, maybe later tonight.

    • Tom

      The concern throughout Europe is that a lot of the refugees are simple economic migrants. The last numbers I saw said that 60% were Albanian and Kosovan’s so not refugees in the normal sense but simple looking for a better life. I do not think you can blame anyone for that, after all most Americans now are descended from Europeans who moved to America for a better life.

      The “antics” of some of the refugees in Sweden and now Germany, along with settled immigrant populations in the UK (aka the Rochdale pedophile ring) has not made people more welcoming. Whilst its certainly a small minority behaving like this its another stick to use to beat the refugees/immigrants with.

      Ultimately though we can not simple have everyone who wants a better life come to Europe, there is just not the resources regardless of any social or cultural consequences. Problems like those in Syria and the widespread poverty across much of sub Saharan Africa need to be sorted at source.

  • iksnilol

    All that you wrote is false.

    Personal handguns are legal with valid reason.

    The taxes you quote are way higher than what is real.

      • ostiariusalpha

        I just listened to a segment on the radio about taxation in Sweden. Apparently the rate for most middle class incomes isn’t too much over what the average American pays, but as you get towards the higher end of the middle class (i.e., doctors and lawyers) it really starts getting logarithmic. Might be a similar situation in Norway.

        • Sianmink

          So they punish success? Sounds about right.

        • 6.5x55Swedish

          It doesn’t grow that much more. The tax they add is only on the money over a set amount. Say you they put an extra tax for people earning over 60 000 a month, then you will pay the normal tax + the extra tax on the money above 60 000.

      • iksnilol

        Point is I don’t know how you calculate taxes.

        For me they are the slash that my profits receive. In statistics like those they calculate everything (including taxes on items and whatnot) + they don’t balance them. Since somebody making a metric ton of money pays way more tax.

    • Matthew Groom

      I quoted an article, which I linked to. Where is your source? Please note that personal experience and anecdotal evidence is not a source. “Legal with a valid reason” when self defense is not considered a valid reason means “banned except for the politically favored”. You would figure that they would simply require military officers buy their own ammo, or acquire their own handguns if that was even remotely possible as an option, rather than pull them all. However, practical experience probably indicates that getting a Glock 17 in Norway is likely impossible for the average man, or even the average military officer.

      • iksnilol

        Valid reason is competition and if you have a real threat to your life. As in somebody is stalking you or tried to hurt you and they haven’t been caught (AKA still a threat). Reason for few Glocks in Norway is that most people are competition shooters and don’t want to bother with such mediocrity.

        I kinda live in Norway almost the entire year, and I’ve worked with these hoops so I know what I am talking about. I pay taxes here so again, I know what I am talking about.

        My source is the Norwegian weapon law itself:

        • Matthew Groom

          Still, one of the most heavily taxed nations on the planet, just slightly less highly taxed than the article I cited. If Glocks are such inferior weapons, why does the Norwegian military issue them? Shouldn’t they be issuing SIG P210’s or HK USP Experts or Korth Classic models? Oh, that’s right; THEY’RE BROKE.

          • iksnilol

            Nah, they saw Glocks worked for their purpose. More carrying than shooting, + not accurate shooting.

  • iksnilol

    Norway is going to crap because of people like you who voted for FRP.

    Y’know, the people promising cheaper booze and gasoline (ooh, and throwing out foreigners) whilst never having actually run a country aren’t the best foundation for your future.

    • Gjert Klakeg Mulen

      I am sorry if you thought I vote for FRP, I am 16 years old, I can’t vote and quite honestly, I like none of the parties. In my eyes they are all bad in one way or the other. (I am on nobody’s side, because nobody is on mine.)

      Ha ein god dag.

  • USMC03Vet

    This is hilarious.

    Prepare the ass cream, butthurt is coming.

  • Ben Pottinger

    Ill tell you exactly how they expect to maintain defense, they will do like much of the rest of the EU and expect the USA (through the UN) to provide for their defense. The same mindset that leads to disarming their civilians all over the EU is apparently going to be applied to the military as well. “Someone else will protect me!”

  • Then in a heavy contested Airspace with S-400 and S-500 systems would render the F-35 useless. Also on top of that the F-35 can’t even beat an F-16 in a Dogfight.

    • Uniform223

      “Then in a heavy contested Airspace with S-400 and S-500 systems would render the F-35 useless”

      >common misconception and fapism perpetuated by Russian Fanboyism

      “Bear in mind that the F-35 is the first US aircraft designed to the requirement that it be highly effective at neutralizing S-400 systems and their cousins.”

      The F-35 with its LO design, sensors, EW suites and other capabilities (that still remain highly classified) is the FIRST and ONLY aircraft that was truly envisioned, designed, and engineered to take on such threats. No other aircraft before it or since comes close to the capabilities the F-35 will bring in the future. Pilots and high level planners have gone so far as to say that the F-35 isn’t so much an evolution or air combat tactics but an absolute REVOLUTION.

      “Also on top of that the F-35 can’t even beat an F-16 in a Dogfight”

      > that bovine fecal matter again.

      That was a TEST… NOT A DOGFIGHT. That event in question (that so many love to bring up) was a test event to expand the flight envelope and tweak the Flight Control Laws of the aircraft. The actual report even states this fact and so does the AAR from the test pilot. The F-16 was used as a visual reference of BFM for the F-35 to maneuver against and with.

    • TJbrena

      In a heavily contested airspace with S-400/500 systems, the F-35 would be part of a larger effort, but since we’re pretending only the F-35 will play any role in this hypothetical scenario, so be it. Some F-35s would be conducting Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses missions, others providing air cover.

      Both the S-400 and S-500 have a purported 250mi (400km) range for air defense. This puts the AGM-158 JASSM’s range of 230mi (370km) just inside that envelope. However, the AGM-158B JASSM-ER has a range of 620mi (1000km). The F-35 can carry the JASSM-ERs in external payloads, fire them at targets that ISR elements designate as S-400/500 missile systems, and be done with it. All without getting in weapons range.

      Or, the F-35s can do the SEAD themselves, the hard way, with AGM-88 HARMs (92mi/150km range) carried on external pylons. Missiles aren’t exactly huge in radar cross-section, but let’s say that they increase the F-35’s RCS by a lot. Clean, an F-35 has a frontal RCS the size of a golf ball, so let’s say the frontal RCS is the size of a soccer ball now.

      Your radar has to detect multiple objects the size of soccer balls, and your defenses need to shoot them down before they close within 150km of you radar system. Otherwise, said radar is now in range of a weapon system that sees air defense radar as an invitation to party. Let’s not even touch on the F-35’s jamming capabilities.

      You underestimate stealth and the range of USAF weaponry. Or maybe you don’t underestimate it, and that’s why you had to add SAMs into the mix.

      Again, the F-35 isn’t a dogfighter because it’s not meant to be. Of course an F-16 can maneuver around it, it’s designed to be one, and it’s lighter to boot. And again, dogfighting is hardly relevant in this day and age.

      But let’s say a Su-35 gets in dogfighting range of an F-35, one-on-one. The F-35 can fire AIM-9X missiles at the Flanker-E regardless of the angle it’s being attacked from. Plus, the F-35 has sophisticated electronic countermeasures and can jam the Flanker’s radar, meaning that the Flanker can’t get a good bearing on the F-35 except by visual contact. And the R-77 missile’s IR seeker doesn’t mean much if the Flanker can’t get a lock in the first place. After jamming the Su-35, the F-35 can just flee and then fire its AIM-9Xs at the Flanker while fleeing.

      The F-35 is extremely capable, and can certainly hold its own in a dogfight.

      • Uniform223

        Don’t forget about the F-35’s MADL and force integration. Should an F-35 ever be caught on its own (which would be very unlikely in modern or foreseeable scenarios), the F-35 can send targeting data to other assets and have them shoot at the would be attacker. An Sukhoi or a Mig that just happened to pounce on a F-35 and puts it on the defensive would get a rude awakening when/if their RWR goes off.

        • TJbrena

          I was humoring Nicky’s “F-35 weak, Su-35 stronk” scenarios, which is why it was only F-35s, and a solo plane to address his bogus dogfighting assertions.

  • John

    “#shouldn’t have spent so much money buying fancy HKs eh?”

    I don’t like HK’s bullcrap (melting G36; no rail MP5s; the inane MP7; no civilian gun support, etc.) but I will be fair to them on this point: the Norwegians were deciding between the 416 and Fabrique Nationale’s SCAR-16 as an infantry rifle.

    They chose the cost-effective purchase, and got the most bang for their buck.

    • Tom

      The HK might have been cheaper than the FN but then they were both expensive options.

      Your basic common garden AR has been functioning just fine in Arctic environments for generations so they could of just gone with Colt or Colt Canada. Of course there was doubtless much pressure to buy European which kind of skewed things in favor of FN or HK don’t you just love protectionism.

  • Uniform223

    I thought this was about pistols… how (in the comment section) did the F-35 get roped into this?

    Here is a food for thought… what is a soldier most likely going to use? Rifle or pistol?

    (From personal experience) The only time I ever fired a pistol during my time in service was once overseas on deployment. Then once CONUS in my last unit which was a Civil Affairs BN. The only time I’ve ever seen other soldiers, marines, airmen, and seamen carry pistols was on post during deployment (majority of the time it was officers or Senior NCOs). Most of the personnel still had their issued rifles/carbines. Very rare did I see somebody with both rifle/carbine AND a sidearm.

  • smartacus

    maybe no longer issuing pistols saves money
    and no longer servicing pistols saves money
    but turning in pistols does not save money

  • F-86 pilots dueled “Honchos” or Russian pilots over Mig Alley.

  • Is that the military pilot or the chief test pilot with the company saying that. I agree though it’s not an F-22.

  • Liam

    “Firearms Not Politics” is a good rule that should be stuck to. This comment section is somewhere between a dumpster fire and a train wreck.

    • iksnilol

      You need some popcorn and a cold drink.

  • Max Popenker

    “Given Norway’s close proximity to Russia, one can only speculate how the
    Norwegian government believes it can secure the defense of the country
    against growing tensions in the East.”

    Oh, Nathaniel, do you really believe that pistols can be of any use in the case of highly probable 😉 Russian intervention to Norway?

  • 6.5x55Swedish

    That is what happens when you buy aircrafts and realize that what you have bought is only half of the product.

    The Norwegians can’t handle money.

  • Uniform223

    Why are you pushing around that POS click bait and proves nothing. Here is the AAR.

    Still it proves NOTHING. If anything it was a test to evaluate the flight control laws. If you actually read the leak report you would understand that it neither a damnation or commendation of the aircraft. The test pilot flew the aircraft and then went back to the flight test engineers and software programmers with observations and recommendations. This test was performed in early 2015. It is mostly like if not certain that more of these flight tests have occurred since then and that the flight control laws of the aircraft are more refined.

  • HKmaster

    how about they buy some Colt uppers, swap them with their 16″ 416 uppers, and sell them stateside for $2.5k. Then they’ll definitely have enough cash to save their handguns HHAHAH

  • DIR911911 .

    should we start them a “gofundme” page?

  • FarmerB

    And they don’t eat meat once a week to save the planet – good job!!

    Why does it say this on the Norwegian Defence Minister website:

    The Norwegian Government proposes a 9.8% real terms defence budget increase for 2016, including a near doubling of funding for the F-35, a significant strengthening of the Intelligence Service and increased High North patrols.
    Is all the money going to the F.35?

  • gusto

    and yet Norway, Sweden, Denmark are always in the top ten of happiest countries. not the finns they are always miserable regardless of what happens

    S, N and D are amongst the healthiest countries in the world, top 10 in everything that matters lifespann, survival rate of babies,
    our socialized medicine is cheaper then your free market one per treatment. top 10 in the tallest department, some of the best education rates in the world

    what is not seen in statistics is that our high school students go straight into universities (law or med school) in the US you need an extra 3-4 years of college

    top 10 in olympic medals by capita

    Sweden is the third largetrs music exporter in the world

    most innovations/patents by capita

    we are killing it in Hollywood, Swedes are everybodies darlings

    we are the kind of liberal that some right wing americans seem to hate but we show it working

    lowest recidivism rates in the world
    most equal societies

    least religious countries in the world with all the benefits that have

    the only downsides are the not so great gun laws, but then on the other hand that makes the average nordic shooter that much better then the average american one. to qualify for pistol we gotta make 46/50 points at 25meters singelhanded.

    • Matthew Groom

      It’s only free countries where people are at liberty to tell you that they are unhappy. Using “happiness” as a metric means that North Korea is the best nation on the planet, because nobody will tell you they’re unhappy.

      Also, our medicine costs more than yours because the government allows lawyers to sue everyone for everything, and because we develop everything. I’ll bet you can’t name five major medical innovations to come from Scandinavia in the past 50 years (Eugenics doesn’t count).

      Americans (real Americans, not Leftists) don’t like anti-Semites who side with the Nazis, like you Swedes did. Norway at least tried to resist. Finland had to side with them because the Soviets kept invading them, but Sweden? Sweden had SS units composed entirely of Swedes. Sweden had an anti-Semetic course in their public schools called “Christendom” that praised the Nazis and treated the Czarist propaganda pamphlet “Chronicles of the Elders of Zion” like it was a textbook until the 1980’s.

      Sweden is homophobic and monocultural. Swedes may not be religious, but they’re being overrun by Muslims who are raping most of their women while their feckless and cowardly metrosexual men stand by twiddling their thumbs, so it’s pretty likely that your children and grandchildren will be VERY religious, attending Mosque five times a day to pray.

      The “average” shooter in America is anyone who wants to be one, whereas in Sweden, only professionals get to do it, so yeah; I’ll bet the professional class of shooters there is better than your “average” American. Not anywhere near America’s best, or even our above average shooters, but still pretty good. Competent, if not particularly capable.

  • Tom Servo

    They should issue them pointed sticks.

  • Peter35

    Russia is not the enemy, you turkeys; the enemy is already in Norway!

  • Geoff

    How does turning in pistols save any significant amount of money??
    What, are they going to melt these down and sell the metal?
    Perhaps letting in tons of incompatible “migrants” wasn’t the best idea then.
    When it comes to national interests vs. importing voters who will transform the country into a the Century hole, the elites have made their choice.
    The people have a limited window to reverse this before they are swamped forever.

  • zippiest

    This is yet another prime example of socialism in fail mode!

  • A Fascist Corgi

    The anti-Russian paranoia is getting ridiculous. Russia isn’t going to invade Norway any time soon. Even if Russia did invade Norway, Norway would be bailed out by NATO. It simply doesn’t make sense for small “social democracies” like Norway to spend a lot of money on their military when America is spending over 600 billion dollars on its military every year. And besides, the real enemy is within their borders already. They should worry more about defeating treasonous, self-destructive, and degenerate liberal ideology than Russia.