[HN Gopher] Is It Time for a Nordic Nuke?
___________________________________________________________________
Is It Time for a Nordic Nuke?
Author : ryan_j_naughton
Score : 110 points
Date : 2026-01-26 16:35 UTC (17 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (warontherocks.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (warontherocks.com)
| christkv wrote:
| you also need submarines to have a "credible" second strike
| deterrent. It's not enough to just have a bomb.
| Onavo wrote:
| And launch vehicles.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Submarines are one of several options for this.
|
| Rockets, submarines, aircraft, or even a nuke in a container
| ship parked in a big harbor work.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Or missile systems constantly moved around on roads,
| railroads, or underground tunnels. And there's also "launch
| on warning."
| ortusdux wrote:
| China's recent container ship weaponization efforts are ..
| interesting - https://www.twz.com/sea/chinese-cargo-ship-
| packed-full-of-mo...
|
| Reminds me of the Rapid Dragon missile system the US uses to
| weaponize cargo planes -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Dragon_(missile_system)
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poseidon_(unmanned_unde
| rwater_...
|
| I'd fully expect China and the US to be working on such
| things.
| bob1029 wrote:
| Delivery of nuclear weapon via shipping container might seem
| like a deterrent but it's kind of the opposite thing.
|
| For something to be a deterrent it must have a few
| properties. Delivery taking a non-zero amount of time and
| producing a gigantic visible ordeal from outer space is a
| _feature_ here. A container bomb going off somewhere in a
| civilian logistics chain is a surprise. Surprises cannot be
| deterrent by their very definition. The inability to
| ~instantly attribute the attack to some party would only
| invite additional instability.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The deterrence aspect is having nukes your adversary can't
| be certain of getting rid of on a preemptive strike.
|
| You don't have to have them _on_ a container ship. You need
| the credible threat of being able to do so.
| bob1029 wrote:
| Container ships tend to be fairly slow to respond and may
| not function as expected during a nuclear war.
|
| The only way for this to work _as a retaliatory measure_
| is to have the weapons already in place at the target
| locations. Now, imagine if someone were to discover the
| weapon and trace it back to whomever installed it. This
| is effectively a slow motion nuclear exchange that was
| initiated by the "defender".
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The point of this particular sort of deterrence is to
| prevent a decapitation strike by an opponent who thinks
| they can knock them all out.
|
| "Yeah, you can drop bunker busters on the silos you know
| about, but six months later one of your cities
| evaporates."
|
| The five big nuclear powers use subs for this, but it's
| hardly the only option.
| fragmede wrote:
| Or just a big enough nuke in the frozen northern tundra, one
| large enough to cause nuclear winter for the whole world.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| Sweden already has good submarines
| https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/05/cheap-100000000-submarin...
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Also used to run a nuclear weapons program back in the
| day[1]. Though, to be honest, I think it'd be politically
| impossible to revive today. There's barely political will to
| build new nuclear power.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_pro
| gra...
| hsuduebc2 wrote:
| I do not think that nuclear power is viewed same as nuclear
| war heads. One is perceived as potentional ecological
| catasprophe and the second one as a weapon of retaliation.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| I honestly don't think most people understand either.
| Younger generations are a bit more open minded, but for a
| lot of people who lived through the news reports of
| Cs137-fallout from Chernobyl raining down on them,
| nuclear _anything_ is represents an invisible and scary
| boogyman.
| hsuduebc2 wrote:
| I like this explanation why people in old soviet block
| tent much more to support nuclear energy. When Chernobyl
| accident happened, communists we're mainly silent about
| that but countries which we're affected and had a free
| press were (rightfully) panicking so general population
| became scared about the use of nuclear as a energy
| source.
| TomatoCo wrote:
| Or a fleet of TELs roaming the uninhabited regions.
| tekno45 wrote:
| you can have a tiny nuclear war, as a treat.
|
| insane we're back here.
| mothballed wrote:
| North Korea has nukes but those in the Nordics are bragging
| about defeating Russia by buying heat pumps. Much of Europe has
| been living in a time of what amounts to ignorant bliss which
| Putin is slowly shaking them out of.
| knallfrosch wrote:
| It would have been stupid not to try peace.
|
| Germany hasn't invaded France (or vice versa) for two
| generations now. The Soviet Union dissolved itself peacefully
| by act of parliament. (Compare to Germany/Japan/Napoleon)
| hiprob wrote:
| "Peacefully" is a strong word, that same parliament would
| later be "peacefully" removed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wik
| i/1993_Russian_constitutional_cr...
| graemep wrote:
| If you want peace, prepare for war
| mothballed wrote:
| And if you aren't prepared, but you have peace anyway,
| you never really made the choice. You just had a bout of
| luck.
| tim333 wrote:
| >Nordics are bragging about defeating Russia by buying heat
| pumps...ignorant bliss...
|
| I think you'll find Finland in particular doesn't have much
| innocent bliss regards Russia and some history there.
| Legend2440 wrote:
| We kinda never really left.
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| if anything, we had fantastic stability because of it, and
| because there were rational-ish actors holding the bombs
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| It was a fantastic bluff from the USA to make the USSR
| believe that Bufford "Mad Dog" Tannen was in charge of the
| nukes, when in reality it was Doc. Brown.
| stoneforger wrote:
| The OG grift, FUD and extortion money. But call it a
| military industrial complex.. The Devil's Playground was
| an eye+opener
| acessoproibido wrote:
| Following Betteridges Law the answer is of course No
| chinathrow wrote:
| It's time to disarm Russia.
|
| Edit: to be more clear: I can't believe that after 4 fucking
| years, a hostile nation is still permitted to wage war against a
| sovereign country.
| kwanbix wrote:
| How do you disarm a bully with the nuclear capacity to blow
| half of the world if not more?
| colechristensen wrote:
| Have the CIA turn enough insiders that one of them succeeds
| in assassinating Putin after a propaganda campaign raising up
| an opposition party ready to take over in an election/coup
| (mixture of both really). Have a weak and friendly leader
| installed that exchanges nukes for population support and
| possibly brakes up Russia into several smaller states.
|
| When the USSR broke up, Ukraine gave up its nukes in exchange
| for security guarantees (lot of good that has done them)
| vablings wrote:
| You act like this is a stroll in the park. I would be
| willing to bet that this is essentially impossible
| colechristensen wrote:
| Tell me you honestly think what is happening in America
| right now isn't the outcome of long planning by Russian
| intelligence (and likely other intelligence services).
| Their plan was to install a leader they had chosen and
| influenced.
|
| Also Epstein was probably also a spy, but more likely for
| Mossad. BIG COINCIDENCE he was so close with dear leader?
|
| Then tell me you think that doing things in Russia isn't
| possible.
| wrqvrwvq wrote:
| Ukraine gave up more than nukes, it forfeited future
| membership in russian federation and nato. All the
| ridiculous bush-era bluster about nato membership for
| ukraine was in itself a (minor) violation of budapest memo.
|
| Reasonable observers don't think ukraine could have kept
| russia's nukes, firstly because they were russia's and not
| ukraine's, and secondly because a country with less than
| $100B economy (in shambles at the end of the ussr) can't
| afford to maintain nuclear surety. Additionally, it's very
| unclear whether any nukes would have been employed by now.
| Any nuclear attack on russia would result in total
| annihilation, and if ukraine could only strike a few high-
| value targets in exchange, it's not a winning weapon or
| even a deterrent.
|
| Finally the rest of the thesis above is likely to result in
| a wave of assassinations and sabotage across europe and a
| wider war that almost all parties have sought to avoid.
| It's a fever dream shared by angry dummies who are
| completely incapable of rational thought.
| colechristensen wrote:
| >Reasonable observers don't think ukraine could have kept
| russia's nukes, firstly because they were russia's and
| not ukraine's, and secondly because a country with less
| than $100B economy (in shambles at the end of the ussr)
| can't afford to maintain nuclear surety. Additionally,
| it's very unclear whether any nukes would have been
| employed by now. Any nuclear attack on russia would
| result in total annihilation, and if ukraine could only
| strike a few high-value targets in exchange, it's not a
| winning weapon or even a deterrent.
|
| I'm not saying that at the time it wasn't the best course
| of action. Something other than what happened _may_ have
| been possible and _may_ have been an improvement, but it
| certainly would give any future nations considering
| giving up their nukes a significant pause.
|
| >Finally the rest of the thesis above is likely to result
| in a wave of assassinations and sabotage across europe
| and a wider war that almost all parties have sought to
| avoid. It's a fever dream shared by angry dummies who are
| completely incapable of rational thought.
|
| Again, this is the method that you would use to do it. If
| it were a _good idea_ it would likely already be done. I
| 'm not saying it's a good consequence-free course of
| action, that wasn't the question.
| toast0 wrote:
| At the fall of the USSR, Coca-Cola should have bartered soda
| with Russia for the nukes. After all, the Cola Wars were
| heating up even as the Cold War looked to be ending, and
| Pepsi had a superior navy, bartered from the USSR with soda,
| and Coke could have used a nuclear deterent.
| non- wrote:
| Permitted? What's your plan to stop them without triggering
| Armageddon?
| tim333 wrote:
| Back in the day Biden could have said we're protecting
| Ukraine - invading troops will be bombed by the USAF, rather
| than the actual - well if you only invade a little bit we
| won't do much.
|
| Now the west is mostly trying to bankrupt Russia which isn't
| going too badly. Oil's being kind of blocked and they've sold
| 71% of their gold to keep things going but that'll run out.
| https://united24media.com/latest-news/russia-
| liquidates-71-o...
| trentnix wrote:
| "permitted"
|
| What exactly do you think their response to attempted forcible
| disarmament would be?
| Barrin92 wrote:
| frankly I think much less than people assume. Obviously
| nuclear weapons need to be taken seriously but we should have
| taken a much more muscular posture ages ago.
|
| There's this mental cold war image of these people grinding
| it out to the Armageddon but in reality the entire Russian
| leadership has their children living in the cities they're
| threatening. Putin has a daughter that manages an art gallery
| in Paris. Bullies back down when you punch back and that's
| the much better framing of modern day rogue actors.
| colechristensen wrote:
| >I can't believe that after 4 fucking years, a hostile nation
| is still permitted to wage war against a sovereign country.
|
| Then you're not paying attention. They have nukes, europe needs
| their gas, and the other major powers don't care about what
| they're doing to Ukraine.
|
| America doesn't have hegemony any longer and its leaders and
| people have been subjugated by foreign powers intelligence
| actions.
| ben_w wrote:
| > europe needs their gas
|
| Needed, past tense. The hold-outs today want it, they do not
| need it.
|
| There's still concern about the nukes though.
| colechristensen wrote:
| ... European gas+LNG consumption has gone down by 2/3 and
| has largely been replaced by Americans and our president
| has openly threatened to steal territory from a NATO ally
| through force.
|
| It's not exactly like Europe is in a comfortable place
| energy-wise nor can it say it doesn't need energy from any
| current supplier.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| They haven't been disarmed because they have _nuclear weapons_.
| Veen wrote:
| How do envision we might disarm an adversary with thousands of
| nuclear missiles, other than by preemptively nuking them and
| hoping they don't respond in time. Not really a plausible plan.
| option wrote:
| Russia can be collapsed just like USSR did.
|
| This time around we must demand that it fully gives up WMDs
| before any help or humanitarian aid reaches it.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| The Russo-Ukrainian war started with an invasion 12 years ago
| at the end of next month, not 4.
| chinathrow wrote:
| Absolutely right.
| pyuser583 wrote:
| People go back and forth on this. When they are trying to
| sound "very smart", they'll insist "well actually, the
| Russians invaded in 2014!"
|
| But something fundamentally different happened in 2022.
|
| Remember, Zelensky was elected on a platform of negotiating
| with Russia for the dispossessed territory. That was
| acceptable 2014 - but certainly not now.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > People go back and forth on this.
|
| No, I think what you have is mostly different people saying
| different things, not people going back and forth.
|
| > But something fundamentally different happened in 2022.
|
| Yes, an escalation in the level of conflict from the
| Russian side intended to bring a rapid conclusion of the
| war happened in 2022.
| b00ty4breakfast wrote:
| nuclear weapons are one of those insidious technologies that are
| almost self-replicating in a sense, because if your enemy has
| nukes it strongly behooves one to either also have nukes or to
| buddy up with someone who has them. Opting out entirely is very
| difficult once the genie is out of the bottle
| spencerflem wrote:
| I get why they would want them but it seems so clear to me that
| the world is going to end in fire
| gjm11 wrote:
| Well, the Nordic countries are already pretty well prepared for
| the alternative of ice.
| LtWorf wrote:
| The fact that all the trains stop going if it snows slightly
| more than usual would indicate that they are in fact not
| prepared at all.
| hsuduebc2 wrote:
| Time for a Nordic nuke is at least from 2008.
| iammjm wrote:
| Russia is genocidal, US unreliable and erratic. The civilized
| world needs nukes. Not only the Nordic countries, but also
| Germany and Poland. Unless Russia and US are willing to give up
| theirs ;)
| tshaddox wrote:
| > Unless Russia and US are willing to give up theirs
|
| I think you're missing a few other countries
| 6d6b73 wrote:
| Germany? Hell no. We need CE + Nordics to have a unified front
| and to keep West and East in check. Nordics + Poland + Czech
| Rep + Ronania and maybe a few smaller countries is the sweet
| spot.
| Glawen wrote:
| Yes I would not feel safe with nukes in Germany
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| Canada too. Front and center with Russia and the US.
|
| Canada has all of the resources too; SK is the 2nd largest
| source of uranium in the world.
| deadbabe wrote:
| Instead of nukes, maybe another massive pandemic super virus that
| kills off half the population of humans on Earth wouldn't be so
| bad.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| to your point, historically mumps neutered some infected men. i
| don't know how one could calculate how much population was
| prevented by mumps before vaccines, though.
| spankalee wrote:
| This is what Trump's dismantling of US power has brought us to.
| Our soon-to-be-former allies can't count on US nuclear deterrence
| to protect them, because not only is the US unreliable, but they
| might be the ones attacking.
|
| We're in crazy-town because of Trump and the Republicans, with
| very real consequences.
| bethekidyouwant wrote:
| France has nukes.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| As does the UK.
|
| But the collapse of the EU/US relationship means you probably
| want to plan for the _potential_ of a similar collapse within
| the European alliances.
| graemep wrote:
| I think the opposite. It straightens incentives to
| cooperate.
|
| IIRC the UK has committed its nuclear weapons to defend
| NATO countries.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > IIRC the UK has committed its nuclear weapons to defend
| NATO countries.
|
| So has the US, which is part of why this is so odd of an
| approach. Technically we're required to nuke ourselves if
| we attack Greenland.
| rcxdude wrote:
| The UK buys its nukes from the US, so it's not really
| independent. (As I recall, the UK doesn't even have free
| choice on where those nukes are targeted).
| zabzonk wrote:
| It buys the launch missiles from the US, the submarines
| and the warheads are home-grown.
| jedberg wrote:
| Not enough to be a deterrent. Until now NATO implicitly
| relied on the USA as their deterrent. That seems to no longer
| be a smart thing to do.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| One is enough. Two were enough the last time they were used
| in war, and those were much smaller than current weapons.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| France kicked the US military out of France in 1966 and
| left NATO's military command structure.
|
| They largely rejoined in 2009 (and very deliberately never
| rejoined NATO's Nuclear Planning Group), but if any NATO
| member is capable of going it alone on this one, it's
| probably France.
|
| 240 nukes on subs is plenty to wave around as a stick, too.
| selectodude wrote:
| France and maybe Poland are the only sovereign countries
| in Europe.
| ben_w wrote:
| > Not enough to be a deterrent
|
| Even if American defences stopped 80% of them, estimates
| say France has enough (290*(1-0.8)=58) to destroy every
| state capital.
|
| Is more really necessary, if the goal is simply to deter?
| b00ty4breakfast wrote:
| it's easy to lay the state of the US at the feet of the GOP,
| but Democratic leadership has been ineffectual for decades,
| either by continuing GOP policies ala Bill Clinton's continuing
| the Reaganite policy of deregulation into the 90s or Obama's
| continuing Dubya-era policies in the war on terror or in simply
| throwing up their hands in defeat ala the Biden DoJ completely
| dropping the ball wrt the Jan 6th and Trump investigations or
| Schumer today being damn-near worthless in offering even the
| appearance of resistance to the dismantling of the liberal
| democratic apparatus of the US government.
|
| The Democratic Party is merely the other half within the narrow
| confines of allowed political discourse in the mainstream. I
| won't go so far as to say they're controlled opposition but it
| is very clear that they have had no intentions of upsetting the
| status quo for a very long time and it has lead to the what is
| currently happening today.
|
| staymad, nerds; if you think Daddy Democrat is saving the day,
| you are in for a rude awakening
| yellowapple wrote:
| They should never have relied on US nuclear deterrence to begin
| with, even if we were perfectly-model allies. Single points of
| failure are worth remediating, preferably _before_ crises.
| roschdal wrote:
| No. Nei.
| rurp wrote:
| I don't think there's any question at this point that it's in
| Nordic self interest to develop a nuclear deterrent. This has
| also become true for other regions in the world.
|
| This is all a horrible development for the overall future of
| humanity, but it's the world we live in now. At a minimum
| hundreds of billions of dollars will be siphoned off from more
| beneficial uses over the coming decades, and the risk of major
| accidents will increase. The worst change is of course the fact
| that the odds of a complete societal collapse have increased
| dramatically.
|
| Almost all of the world's nukes are controlled by aging old
| dictators or aspiring dictators who are surrounded by sycophants
| and treat competence as much less important than personal
| loyalty. Geopolitical risks are only going to increase as these
| rulers become more erratic and demented.
| alphazard wrote:
| > I don't think there's any question at this point that it's in
| Nordic self interest to develop a nuclear deterrent.
|
| Yes, it definitely is.
|
| > The worst change is of course the fact that the odds of a
| complete societal collapse have increased dramatically.
|
| A nuke means that anyone who wants to invade you needs to price
| in a total loss of their largest city as a possible outcome.
| That is a great disincentive, one that Ukraine probably wishes
| it had against Russia.
|
| > and the risk of major accidents will increase.
|
| I don't think that's reasonable to say about a bunch of
| countries getting their first nuke. The concern should be more
| with countries like the US and Russia that have so many nukes,
| which they can't possibly use effectively, and don't have the
| ability to properly maintain.
|
| If every western country had exactly one nuke, the world would
| probably be much safer than if the US has all of them.
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| > A nuke means that anyone who wants to invade you needs to
| price in a total loss of their largest city as a possible
| outcome. That is a great disincentive, one that Ukraine
| probably wishes it had against Russia.
|
| It's even more complex than that. If Ukraine responded
| conventional war with nukes, it can be sure Russia would
| retaliate with even more nukes, practically extinguishing
| their statehood.
|
| The equilibrium is reached when the exchange is equally
| devastating, so the only winning move is attacking first, and
| only if the attacked won't be able to retaliate. The Cold War
| never ended, just warmed a little, because it doesn't exist
| (yet) a guaranteed way to avoid an all-out nuclear
| retaliation.
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| That the Cold war was cold is also a joke. It was full,
| full, full of hot conflicts with client states.
|
| What it seems to have deterred is two major states warring
| directly.
| b00ty4breakfast wrote:
| that was the etymology, given the world we were emerging
| was one where major world powers came directly to blows
| amongst themselves rather than through the countless
| small-scale, regional proxy wars we saw over the 2nd half
| of the 20th century.
| suprjami wrote:
| Conventional proxy wars are significantly cooler than
| all-out thermonuclear war.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Even as the aggressor, you don't want to be nuked even if
| it might warrant a response.
| aa-jv wrote:
| Why just western countries? Let the entire world function
| under this same system of threat/protection. Why should it
| only be limited to your side?
| assaddayinh wrote:
| Longterm klingons dont go to space, they goto heaven. Tribalist
| warrior cultures do not survive the nuclear age .
| Timpanzee wrote:
| In light of renewed aggressions from powerful states, the only
| recourse smaller states have to defend themselves is to turn
| themselves into a fortress like Taiwan (which is prohibitively
| expensive for most larger states) or nuclear deterrence (which
| Ukraine gave up for false guarantees of protection from
| invasion). Guarantees aren't what they used to be, and I wouldn't
| be surprised if many waning US allies are covertly developing
| nuclear capabilities.
|
| I hope my state is because the alternative is being at the whim
| of the powerful nuclear states around us in a political climate
| of rising authoritarianism.
| Zealotux wrote:
| Ukraine never had the possibility to keep its nuclear arsenal,
| they simply didn't have the infrastructure for it, let's not
| pretend they had any real choice.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The US built nukes in the 1940s. Ukraine has at least as much
| technical know-how and engineering infrastructure as, say,
| Pakistan or North Korea.
|
| They couldn't have launched the Russian warheads as-is, but
| disassembly and reuse of the warhead material is another
| thing entirely.
| the_snooze wrote:
| Ukraine was never a nuclear power any real sense. The USSR's
| bombs were parked there, and Ukraine merely had physical (but
| not operational) custody over them after the USSR fell. Ukraine
| could have kept them to bootstrap a nuclear arms program, but
| they didn't, so they were never had a nuclear deterrent to give
| up in the first place.
| qaq wrote:
| Nice russian talking point. UA designed developed and
| maintained most top tier soviet nuclear weapons. The largest
| nuke plant in USSR was Yuzhmash in Dnepr and largest design
| bureau again in UA Dnepr KB Yuzhnoe. UA had to help maintain
| russian nukes after the collapse of USSR cause russia lacked
| tech. capability.
| aktenlage wrote:
| Credible Source?
| qaq wrote:
| Are you banned by google ? I literally provided you the
| names of the entities. They btw. designed and built the
| infamous SS-18 Satan
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| Since you're the one making the claim, it's fair for you
| to be the one to source it, even if it's just a Wikipedia
| link.
|
| It's rethorically dishonest to make bold claims and ask
| others to "google them sources".
| qaq wrote:
| How is it a bold claim ?
| collingreen wrote:
| Google it to find out
| impossiblefork wrote:
| But the claim is literally true?
|
| Yuzhnoye Design Office designed the R-36 (SS-18) and it
| was built by Yuzhny Machine-Building Plant, both in
| Dnipro.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepr_(rocket)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KB_Pivdenne
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pivdenmash
|
| etc.
| qaq wrote:
| To understand scale the Yuzhmash campus is 1800+ acres
| Boeing Everett is about 1000 acres
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| > Guarantees aren't what they used to be
|
| Anyone that has read history knows that state leaders' promises
| are written in the wind. Throughout history, states have
| traditionally behaved like dishonorable people, because their
| leaders have been traditionally dishonorable. It's as if it was
| almost a requirement, no matter the form of government.
| technothrasher wrote:
| > their leaders have been traditionally dishonorable.
|
| I suspect that is because the majority of people who would
| make good, honorable leaders of nations do not want the job.
| pyuser583 wrote:
| Taiwan isn't much of a fortress. The Nordic states are probably
| better defended than Taiwan.
| fsloth wrote:
| Yes please.
| fsloth wrote:
| No, seriously, the reason the world is messed up now is that
| only some powers have monopoly on nuclear weapons. And every
| single one of the major powers is internationally in an
| aggressive, expansive mood.
|
| We could have had a world without nuclear escalation.
|
| But the last 4 years have shown that if as a country and nation
| you don't have a nuclear umbrella, you don't have recognised
| sovereignty and hence cannot do the single most important duty
| a state has - to protect the human rights of it's citizens.
|
| So I'm afraid the lot of the non-nuclear countries is either
| nuke up, or lick the boot.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| Nordic countries have had nuclear power plants for half a
| century.
|
| If they don't have a sufficient secret stock pile of nuclear
| weapons already, then they have been utter and total fools.
|
| If they don't have secret nuclear weapons in orbit, they have
| been severely irresponsible.
|
| Let's hope the plans of their leaders is not to send all young
| men as infantry to the meat grinder to die for a country which
| hates them, like they are doing in the Ukraine war. But who
| knows? Life is full of surprises.
| exitb wrote:
| Typically the point of nuclear deterrence is to brag about your
| capabilities, not keep them secret.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| It probably doesn't hurt to have your opponent worry that
| your capabilities are secretly _even more effective_ than
| openly stated, though.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| What we can hope for is a situation similar to Israel, where
| they "officially" don't admit to having nuclear arms, but
| everybody knows they do.
| assaddayinh wrote:
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p6uxLHWVYRg
|
| A lot more countries then expected had or almost had the bomb.
| option wrote:
| The lesson from Ukraine is resounding Yes.
|
| Any country (this includes both democracies and petty
| dictatorships) which wishes to be safe and independent must get
| nukes and means of delivery now.
| lawn wrote:
| Yes.
|
| Russia will be prepared to launch another attack in just a few
| years after the war on Ukraine ends and the US cannot be relied
| upon.
|
| In fact, it's even worse as the US may end up as the enemy!
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| As a Swede we don't have the competence or expertise anymore. We
| did have at one time and we tried to make the bomb.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_progra...
|
| Everything is service or finance economy now. Nobody cares about
| science sadly (me included).
|
| It's all Netflix & TikTok, Foodora scrolling until the end now.
| SwetDrems wrote:
| Any nation launching any nuke has the potential to eliminate most
| life on earth. Limited nuclear war is very unlikely. This is a
| nightmare.
|
| Please read Nuclear War: A Scenario, a book by Annie Jacobsen
| that discusses the insanity of nuclear war.
| zarzavat wrote:
| This article is so batty it's hard to take seriously. The Nordics
| are not going to be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. I know
| the UNSC seems toothless most of the time, but on this issue they
| are united.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > I know the UNSC seems toothless most of the time, but on this
| issue they are united.
|
| The UNSC has long been toothless on this issue; see North
| Korea.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Best time was over 70 years ago. Second best time was 69 year
| ago. But currently best is now.
| Pinus wrote:
| From what I have understood, a significant part of the reason why
| Sweden scrapped its nuke program last time around, was that we
| found out that nukes pose more questions than they answer.
| Obviously, you need the nukes themselves, and a reliable delivery
| mechanism. Neither are cheap. Preferably, you want second-strike
| capability, which is kind of tricky. And you want some way of
| balancing things so that the enemy does not take a chance on that
| second-strike capability and nuke you first anyway. Then you need
| something to use them _for_. At the time, the targets would
| probably have been ports in the Baltic states, then (involuntary)
| parts of the Soviet union and likely starting points for the
| hypothetical Soviet invasion fleet. Could we really stomach the
| idea of killing a few thousand Estonian civilians, probably not
| too happy about being used as stepping stones by the Soviets? For
| most military targets, there are better weapons.
|
| Of course, it has later been argued that by entering into various
| more or less hidden agreements with the US, we made ourselves
| nuclear targets anyway, with no formal guarantees whatsoever to
| show for it...
| flowerthoughts wrote:
| Given that Sweden manufactures submarines since long ago, I'm
| surprised second-strike capability was even a question.
|
| Agreed that finding a target that doesn't blow back in our own
| face would be an issue. Though you don't really have to answer
| that question to have a deterrent, almost by definition.
| madspindel wrote:
| Bring out the Swedish Nuclear Canon:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90wcPsxr4H4
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsMcAvAITjk
| wasmainiac wrote:
| I live in Norway and I agree we should have a nuclear deterrent,
| however this article feels like navel gazing, it's long,
| projecting and speculative.
|
| What is not discussed well is delivery systems, which we are
| lacking for second strike capability... submarines or complex
| siloes?
|
| My only wish for the program is that we keep the capability
| within our control to prevent political overhead and give the
| current government the ability to destroy the current
| capabilities at a moment's notice in case the following govt
| seems irresponsible. Who knows what we will look like in
| 200years.
| class3shock wrote:
| Is it time? Maybe. Will they do it? Probably not. The European
| countries constantly talk and never act. It took the second
| Russian invasion of Ukraine for them to even barely start to do
| anything and even now, they are still trying to get the US to
| continue to be the backbone of their defense strategy. Even as
| the US takes actions that (in their minds) are ruining that idea,
| instead of acting, they just complain and condemn.
|
| Even if tomorrow they decided to actual work together and invest
| in their own capabilities it would be decades before they would
| be free of the US defense sector and they know it and it's why
| they are so resistant to the idea. I think you would need to see
| more aggression by the Russians combined with substantially more
| shenanigans by the US (more than just bombastic announcements for
| the sake of grabbing media attention) for that to change because
| you are talking about trillion dollar investment, every year, for
| decades to walk a different path.
| 6d6b73 wrote:
| I find it funny that everyone complains that Europeans
| currently just talk and never act.. Every time Europeans acted,
| it ended in either a world war, of half of the war colonized..
| So not sure if you really want Europeans to act..
| class3shock wrote:
| I'm not sure how we went from the "act" being "invest in
| their own defense" to "start ww3" but I am quite confident no
| one is complaining they are not doing that, lol.
| tim333 wrote:
| In Europe we do have some non US weapon systems thankfully.
| Maybe not as good as the US kit but quite functional on the
| whole. We've been a bit surprised as long time allies of the US
| for them to get a president who seems more fond of Russia than
| the democratic world. I didn't see that one coming.
| class3shock wrote:
| You do but when it comes to certain critical areas that
| require very large investments in R&D to get going (space
| launch, 5th/6th gen fighters, nuclear deterrents, etc.) there
| is a significant lack of home grown capacity/capability.
| That's more what I was referring to in the above, you guys
| have plenty of comparable stuff in many areas.
|
| Let me tell you, you folks weren't the only ones caught off
| guard by the current American political leadership. I think
| Europe is still betting this is more theater than anything
| and things will move back towards baseline in the long run,
| which I think is a fair bet, but I do wish they would hedge
| that bet a bit more than they are currently.
| glimshe wrote:
| This is a fantastic idea to trigger the truly unthinkable: a war
| between the "Nordics" and the two European nuclear states.
| rramadass wrote:
| Relevant detailed paper;
|
| _The Domestic Politics of Nuclear Choices -- A Review Essay_ by
| Elizabeth N. Saunders (pdf) - https://profsaunders.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2019/09/saunders...
| GeorgeOldfield wrote:
| I read the title and i thought we are considering if nuking
| Northern Europe is a good idea.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-27 10:01 UTC)