There may also just be a cultural difference. Dramatic & tragic as it is, a hijacked commercial plane is not an existential threat to a nation. "9/11" aside, most hijackings are resolved peacefully as fuel runs out and perpetrators discover surrender is the only survivable option. Viewed as a police problem and not a military concern, I can see those in charge deciding it wasn't worth pouring enormous resources into for little more than an irrelevant show of force.

This in contrast to the US's increasing approach of militarizing absolutely every criminal transgression down to growing the wrong kind of plant.

Cultural choices.

They sent fighters up to escort it. I don't think their response has been any different than the US. Pre-9/11 that wouldn't have been the case. 9/11 affected the whole world.

9/11 is not considered an existential threat to the US. No one believes al Qaeda or any terrorist group has that kind of power. However, they are capable of a lot of tragedies. Sending fighters up is part of a calculus that we will rather take the lost of a smaller group of people over a larger group. I don't think it's reasonable to draw a larger conclusion than that.

The point of this thread is they didn't send fighters up to escort it. They welcomed other countries doing so, but being outside office hours they were not inclined to scramble jets themselves.

I didn't say 9/11 was an existential threat. Knowing it would be used as an objection for my lack of encyclopedic completeness, I exempted it from the observation that most hijackings end peacefully. As for your "calculus", the only thing they can do is aggressively assure the hijackers don't turn it into a 9/11-style attack; shooting down a loaded airbus is not preferable to closing most airstrip options and letting lack of fuel force a landing where subsequent takeoff cannot happen.

The plane was already escorted by fighters from friendly nations. So long as the Swiss trust that the Italians and French are competent, why bother. That has little to do with 9/11.

Shooting down a loaded Airbus is definitely not preferable and the US has never done that. The right action is as you said to escort it to prevent a 9/11 type attack. In similar situations, the US has done precisely that. The US has escorted jets down.

I don't see how the actions of the Swiss is really all that different from anyone else. The current norm of escorting hijacked airlines with fighters seems appropriate. The only difference here is that the Swiss was willing to rely on the military of friendly nations to do it. It would be a whole other matter if the Swiss told the French to turn back and let the airliner land unescorted.

Are we talking past each other? Or maybe I'm not appreciating the differences you're trying to point out. I'm wary of any attributions to culture, etc. Most of what happened was fairly procedural.

This is one major advantage of the EU. Not everybody needs to prepare for every eventuality, since their neighbors have their back.

Articles like this are helpful now, because the Swiss (well at least some of them), seem to have forgotten what benefits their close cooperation with the EU brings.

Their neighbors have their back, but the reality is that they're all drafting off the US military spend.

That's a bit of a jump I think...

Had it been Canada and the US, I'm sure they would have done the same for each other and they're not part of any union.

I don't think we can make generalizations like this because while EU is good for some things, it has also been devastating for other things like the disparity in economies in Germany vs Spain, Italy, Greece.

I have no clue how European air defense works, but I thought US and Canada have been part of Norad since the bad old days? Thus, while they're not part of a union (as far as I can tell), they share military duties in some areas.

I might have used a poor example but I think most countries on good terms with their neighbors would help each other out in an emergency without them being part of any formal union.

Switzerland is neither in the EU, nor in the NATO.

That's what "the Swiss [...] seem to have forgotten what benefits their close cooperation with the EU brings" refers to (in combination with the recent Swiss vote to limit immigration from the EU)

This is stupid Swiss bashing : Switzerland is such a little country surrounded by peaceful neighbors that they don't need to maintain a costly air-force in peace times.

I think they have agreements with France to cover their air space and probably Italy too judging by the article.

Maybe I am the only one that appreciates the cheese and the mountains, but Switzerland also has banks — and everybody likes that.

Last year's scenario for the annual Swiss large-scale military exercise was something along: "Eurozone has collapsed, France is after cold-hard cash, and comes to invade Geneva to rob the banks".

Also, Switzerland has launched the "Ilana" project to reach 24/7 airspace coverage in 2020. Maybe they decided they needed it after all?

Finally, one of the main reasons for the restricted flight hours is the nuisance due to the noise, which has nothing to do with peace time or bilateral military agreements.

I do not encourage Swiss bashing — Belgians have always been my favourite. However, get your facts right before calling something "stupid".

I don't see this as bashing -- it's incredibly civilised and rational, and a sign of a country that is relaxed about its position in the world. If only we were all like that.

English is not my mother tongue maybe I was unclear : the bashing was from the journalist ;-)

While you may be right about this being "stupid Swiss bashing", the swiss do have a considerable army for such a small country which they should not have to maintain either.

Switzerland hasn't been invited for 800 years precisely because it does have a considerable army (to wit: every able-bodied male), not for want of would-be conquerors.

A famous exchange between German and Swiss military leaders:

"We have 400,000 troops ready to invade. You have but 200,000 civilian militia. What will your people do when ours arrive?"

"Shoot twice and go home."

No invasion.

Also, the terrain is notoriously difficult, the bridges have predetermined break points and places to put the dynamite (none there atm, but not so long ago there was), and any old shed in the mountain could contain a bunker or hangar. Apart from Israel, Switzerland is the only country with enough bunkers for the whole population (even ABC rated I think).

Then how did the Helvetic Republic come about? During the wars of the French revolution it had pitched battles fought on its territory by outside forces (some of which had Swiss regiments on payroll, if not on the battlefield). Foreign powers moved large military forces through Swiss territory for many centuries.

I stand corrected. For 5 years, France attempted to instill a puppet government over the otherwise loosely aligned Swiss cantons. The attempt failed 211 years ago.

Indeed, I was quibbling, and I do think that the Swiss system is excellent.

And being a civilian militia has a number of advantage: one cannot simply bomb a few military bases and decimate their military strength.

You can't even circle over the Swiss Geneva airport without passing over France though.

I thought the new line of thinking was that if the passengers don't stop the hijackers it is basically game over.

According to a poster on reddit, the way the copilot controlled the passengers was to turn off oxygen in the cabin.

This is kinda symbolic, of the fact that why Switzerland is the venue of most major peace summits, various UN offices, and what not.

Additionally, probably people are thinking that Switzerland should have 2, only two aircraft at least for such emergencies of civil nature, which is viable. It would be better than relying on others since its possible that there can be major problems on a coordination level in case of civil emergency in future. Though it seems unlikely this time around, it could be a problem in future, if Swiss culture and of its neighbors grow in different direction (even if not hostile).

Someone sitting somewhere can say in that case, "umm.. should I take help from country X or Country Y.. who should have operational command? "