Swedish nuclear bomb

[Ares96]

For those of you who didn't know, the Swedish military, with tacit support from the civilian government, tried to develop atomic weapons. The plan was to make about 20 small plutonium bombs (think Fat Man, and you'll have a rough idea of what we're talking) to use as defensive measures against a possible Soviet attack. However, a combination of design flaws (for example, the critical mass of plutonium was hideously overestimated), waning political support and (in the '60s) anti-nuclear feelings among the general public led to the project getting mothballed, and with the signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by Sweden in 1968 the plans were abandoned altogether.

Now, the logical thing that follows is to ask: what if the project had succeeded? What if a small neutral country, which was nowhere near a great power, developed nuclear weapons? What would international reactions look like, and what would other neutral nations and nations attempting to be neutral (de Gaulle's France comes to mind) take this for? What would be the reactions of the US and the USSR?

And last but not least, how could the program succeed? It was fairly popular at least in political circles, but the program had some fatal flaws (the reactor that was supposed to provide plutonium was very badly designed, and then there was the previously mentioned critical mass calculation error), and I don't know whether it could actually have ended successfully even if it had been allowed to continue. What are your opinions on this?

[Color-Copycat]

I'm almost certain there was another thread made quite recently with some good discussion on the points you'd like addressed, but the search function isn't turning up anything more recent than this one

[RamscoopRaider]

About the same reaction as South Africa getting the Bomb, and probably the same result, with the end of the Cold War Sweden gets rid of it

[Emperor of Scandinavia]

Perhaps if Finland undergoes a Soviet backed coup, and openly joins Warsaw Pact, that would be a good encouragment to develop a nuke.

The world reaction?

USA helps Sweden develop bomb, and when Soviets collapse, Sweden gives up bomb(s).

What to call a Swedish Nuke?

The world's most destructive Swedish Meatball.

Wishing you well, his majesty,
The Scandinavian Emperor

[imperialaquila]

Originally Posted by RamscoopRaider

About the same reaction as South Africa getting the Bomb, and probably the same result, with the end of the Cold War Sweden gets rid of it

I don't think so; Sweden is significantly nicer and non-threatening than South Africa. I can't see anyone having a problem with Sweden having a nuke, given their neutrality.

Of course, once the Cold War ends, I think it's very likely that the nuclear program gets cut as a sort of 'peace dividend', as the rationale for their existence would have disappeared.

Internationally, it might lend a bit more weight to the idea of nukes as a deterrent for neutral nations, and Sweden might be cited as a precedent for various regimes trying to get nukes for one reason or another. I don't think it'd have any concrete effect, but it's a thought.

[juanml82]

Well, the reasons are there, although they probably need something more powerful than "Little Boy", without getting into H-Bombs, which could be too expensive for Sweden.
What's lacking is the public support and some twist of fate to have some of the issues in the program averted or worked out early own. Public opinion might have turned with press and propaganda, although they need to be subtle enough so they don't openly announce the program while it's too early.
I don't think neither the USA or the USSR would like such a program as it encourages proliferation and poses some deterrence, albeit light, against Soviet aggression. I guess both superpowers will oppose to it, no idea on what they'll do to disrupt it.
About global consequences, it will promote proliferation, but I'm not sure how much actual effects it will end up having. I don't know if minor countries can speed up their respective programs. Israel will bomb any country in the Middle East that tries to get them. NATO countries are under the American nuclear umbrella. Pakistan might push harder than OTL but I don't have any idea if they can get them earlier. The USSR isn't likely to leave North Korea develop them. Maybe South Korea might try to get their own independent deterrence? Argentina and Brazil programs aren't likely to be sped up and, in any case, are only a regional threat as neither country would be able to build ICBMs and, like South Africa, they are too far away from NATO and Warsaw Pact members to be a threat in the context of a WWIII (which doesn't mean that, once the spare capability is available in the late '70s, the USSR and even maybe the USA would target them, assuming nuclear weapons were actually developed or close to)

[Ares96]

I think South Korea getting nukes might be a possibility; Taiwan would probably want them, whether they can get them is an entirely different matter. Israel might also get the bomb in such a scenario.

I'm not sure about whether the US would help in the development; I think they'd be as eager as the Soviets to stop nuclear proliferation. As for Finland going Communist, it seems somewhat unlikely; the communists were more or less openly discredited as traitors after the Winter War, and they had very little popular support.

Another thing one must take into account is that when the program was initiated (in 1948), the military leadership thought of nuclear bombs as a mundane weapon of war, something that every self-respecting nation would want for their defence. This was before the H-bomb, and the idea that having enough nukes and dropping them would entail apocalypse didn't occur to them.

[Genmotty]

It would have hardly changed anything.

Sweden wouldn't need a powerful nuclear deterent to help enforce its neutrality, the point is that because they have nuclear weapons, it makes a conventional war against Sweden totally undesirable, because although using a weapon on home soil is a bad thing, the Swede have the choice to do that if overrun, or to strike back at the Soviets with a 'nuclear sneak attack' if they want to.

This decidibly will gurantee the Soviet 'non-sphere of influence' in Scandenavia.

The downside is Sweden becomes a defacto nuclear target for both NATO and the Comintern in a nuclear exchange, but being as they were anyhow historically. This doesn't change anything again.

Indeed I don't see Sweden giving up the bomb like other nations had it developed it, because it sits still in the 'Russian backyard' and while Sweden doesn't need nuclear power per se either decommistioning the weapon is a sign of weakness, and if your neutral, then you need to have your own 'neutral defense force' to safeguard that neutrality against opertunism, in the 'Great Game'.

But Sweden with nuclear weapons will no effect nuclear proliferation in any way because Sweden isn't a threat to anybody.

The DPRK is threatened by all its neighbours bar China
Iran is threatened by the west.
India is threated by Pakistan
Pakistan by India

SA just did it 'because'

Nations develop the weapon because they feel threatened, and because it is the ultermate gurantee of their soveriegty, SA being the exception.

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

Originally Posted by RamscoopRaider

About the same reaction as South Africa getting the Bomb, and probably the same result, with the end of the Cold War Sweden gets rid of it

South Africa got it among other reasons because:

A. By the late 80's when it actually had a functioning program it was completely isolated internationally and didn't want Moscow playing the "let's pick on the people nobody likes" game.

B. They were in the middle of a massive conflict with Angola and its various allies (notably Cuba) with a big front in Southwest Africa, nothing convinces Luanda to make peace like the threat that Pretoria's going to snap and blow them to kingdom come.

C. Look at their resources, those massive deposits of uranium, and a huge tech sector... getting a nuclear program is never easy, but having a ton of resources and things in your favor for developing one always eases the decision.

Sweden satisfies none of these requirements and of all the nations to go all nuclear proliferation the United States is least likely to raise much fuss over Sweden.

[DrakonFin]

Originally Posted by Ares96

However, a combination of design flaws (for example, the critical mass of plutonium was hideously overestimated), waning political support and (in the '60s) anti-nuclear feelings among the general public led to the project getting mothballed, and with the signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by Sweden in 1968 the plans were abandoned altogether.

Paul M. Cole, in his essay "Atomic bombast: Nuclear weapon decision‐making in Sweden, 1946–72" says that

When Sweden signed the NPT in 1972, it faced no technical barriers to the production of nuclear weapons, but it lacked the necessary political will. The decision to remain a non-nuclear state was motivated primarily by domestic political factors, deriving, in part, from ideological considerations put forward by the governing social Democratic Party (SAP).The government's public position was twofold: Nuclear weapons would divert funds from social welfare programs and thus make it impossible to sustain with any credibility the line that had guided Swedish foreign policy since the end of the Napoleonic era - nonalignment in peace with the intent to remain neutral in war.

If we accept this assessment, the biggest problem facing a Swedish nuclear deterrent is the "neutrality complex" and the dominant position of the Social Democrats. In other words, political tradition in foreign affairs and the fine line between believable neutrality and belligerence. Armed neutrality is all well and good, and IOTL Sweden managed to hold on to the pretension of neutrality even with its strong covert ties to NATO - of which the USSR was naturally aware. But when does armed neutrality turn too armed, indeed threatening: it would be easy to say that the line runs in having a nuclear arsenal.

Some in this thread have considered what would be the American response to Swedish nukes. What about the Soviets? Considering Sweden's positive relations with NATO, it would be easy for the Kremlin to think that if war comes, Swedish nukes would be NATO nukes in all but name. A reason, then, to increase the size of the nuclear deterrent along the northwestern border. And to push Finland harder to live up to the "commitments" enshrined in the FCMA Treaty.

The result would easily be the destabilisation of the fragile order in the Nordic area. If Sweden seems threatening and belligerent to the USSR, even if its actions could be spun that way by the Soviets, Finland's tenuous neutrality would become under serious threat. This is why Finland IOTL was officially very much against any nuclear weapons in the Nordic area. Indeed for Kekkonen a non-nuclear North was a pet project since the 60s. And I believe that the Swedish moderate left, very often dominant in both the Riksdag and the cabinet, also considered the above chain of events likely if Sweden committed to a nuclear deterrent.

Consider also that Sweden spent pretty much on weapons and the armed forces as it was IOTL, for a smallish nation. And at the same time was building a welfare state that had no real precedent in history. It would be fair to say that if a significant amount of money goes to a nuclear program, it would have to be taken from welfare programs - your traditional weapon against the growth of a potentially pro-Soviet far left. Or then the money would have to be taken from other military projects, like the air force or navy programs. And many Swedish weapons programs were at least partly export-driven, expected to also bring some profits at some point in time - for political reasons, this can hardly be the deal with its nuclear program.

So one could say that by committing to a nuclear weapons program Sweden risks political instability both domestically and internationally, undermining its traditional non-alignment policy as well as national cohesion, and/or possibly puts in terms of defense its eggs in a single, nuclear basket while hurting its defence industry.

These are, IMO, some of the hurdles to overcome before a Swedish nuclear arsenal can become reality.

[RamscoopRaider]

What I meant was that it is likely to be insignificant in the grand scheme of things and soon forgotten, how many people remember South Africa once had nuclear weapons and how much did it change the major powers war-plans?

Not by all that much, so really the Swedish nuclear program would have roughly the same impact

This of course says nothing on how Sweden gets the bomb, I am not prepared to comment there

[oberdada]

Originally Posted by DrakonFin

And many Swedish weapons programs were at least partly export-driven, expected to also bring some profits at some point in time - for political reasons, this can hardly be the deal with its nuclear program.

The only potential, politicaly acceptable costumer I could think of is Switzerland...

[Warmaster Samiel]

One thing that isn't talked about much here in Sweden is that the biggest reason we didn't developed nuclear weapons was because of the deals we made with the US.

Sweden might have officially claimed to be neutral but neither Soviet or America really considered us to be that. In return for not developing nukes, we would provide airfields for strategic bombers, making it easier for the US to reach targets in Soviet.

[Ares96]

Originally Posted by Warmaster Samiel

One thing that isn't talked about much here in Sweden is that the biggest reason we didn't developed nuclear weapons was because of the deals we made with the US.

Sweden might have officially claimed to be neutral but neither Soviet or America really considered us to be that. In return for not developing nukes, we would provide airfields for strategic bombers, making it easier for the US to reach targets in Soviet.

That's probably true. Also, welcome to the boards! It's nice to see more Swedish people coming on here.

[Warmaster Samiel]

Originally Posted by Ares96

That's probably true. Also, welcome to the boards! It's nice to see more Swedish people coming on here.

Thanks, happy to be here.

About 'Swedish neutrality', the russians never considered us neutral but rather as Nato's ally.
Which made things quite interesting when our prime minister Olof Palme participated in a North Vietnamese demonstration against the US.