Swedish Bomb

In the 1970's Sweden was pursuing a nuclear deterrent, but decided to buy a new fighter plane instead. What if the decision goes the opposite way?
 

Germaniac

Donor
well Sweden would be able to stand up to the Soviet and would probably follow a similar path as south africa and get rid of them because the swedish economy could not support a nuclear program.
 
Don't under-rate the Swedes.They did consider building a delta-wing single-seater with 600-800 Kg payload bay back in 1957 but shelved the idea. If they did so now (maybe in response to Putin or Iran), the Viggen and Gripen have at least a 2,000 km range before refuelling. I'd convert a Viggen to a cruise missile and put the bomb in an extended cockpit bay - no need for a return flight and you could use GPS to give accuracy. Nuclear technology in production of a basic fission-triggered fusion bomb is not too hard for Sweden to arrange, particularly if Israel proved responsive.With its remarkable sheltering system and trained population, a nuclear-armed Sweden would be a nasty proposition for any nation to attack. The Swedes are peaceful, so I doubt that first-use would be likely to appeal to them.
 
In the 1970's Sweden was pursuing a nuclear deterrent, but decided to buy a new fighter plane instead. What if the decision goes the opposite way?

Then they'd have older (or fewer) fighters and a very limited nuclear deterrent that'd probably not be much of a threat to the USSR in the event of a major war.

If there had been a WW3 they'd naturally have been incursions into Swedish territory and Sweden would've essentially been a NATO player if they fought back - they did co-operate with NATO in peacetime after all - but any first use of nukes by them would've seen their nation's population areas obliterated. (Assuming Sweden just had nuclear ordnance carried aboard fighter aircraft. With fixed ground silos the situation would've been even more precipitous: the USSR could've attacked them conventionally and the Swedes would be left with either using them first, and inviting a massive response for very little gain, or losing them.)

So the Soviets could afford to call their bluff. Overall the Soviets could've been just as, if not more, aggressively domineering towards the Swedes and infringed their neutrality even more often during peacetime. Just to let them know who's boss.
 
As already has been pointed out the choise of Swedish nuclear weapons was made before the 1970s. (My personal guess is that if no positive decision was made before 1960 it would not happen at all. During the 50s Sweden remembered WW2, expanded the military and the military-industrial complex was strong. During the 60s this ended.)

Since a large part of the social democrats (the then ruling and almost instutional party in Sweden) was strongly against nukes and that it would be very expensive, not to mention that Sweden and the US had a secret agreement that US would defend Sweden against Soviet attack few Swedes saw nukes as necessary.

Swedish nukes would therefore be the result of a big POD, not the cause.

The only realistic POD I can come up with is if the Soviet Union occupied Finland, at the same time the US turned isolationistic and never made any agreements with Sweden.

Sweden seems to have had two possible uses for nukes. The first as MAD doctrine - say goodbye to Leningrad if you attack. The second to hit the Baltic ports in case of invasion. At least the second mission would simply demand submarines with nuclear warheads, no fancy bombers. (A third use would be tactical - bkan1a could fire 15 rounds in 45 seconds. Made to vaporize Soviet divisions.)

How Swedish nukes would change the history is difficult to say, since I assume a very negative POD before that. A Sweden far less conviced that talk solves everything and that the US and Soviet Union are moral equals? Maybe (if early enough) an alliance with Norway and Denmark?
 
So, what if Sweden actually decides to develop nukes.

The PoD is 1963 with Sweden actually deciding to build the nukes, following the Cuban Missile Crisis. Work is continued on the programme, although the entire work is to be undertake secretly, in order not to make the Soviets aware of the progress.
By 1969 a lot of work has been finished, then however parts of the ongoing project are leaked and Moscow is surprised and shocked by the findings.
NATO and partly the US are shocked by news, although the CIA already knew about the project, but failed to report so to the Administration.
It's 1969 and the Soviets see a chance rising.
A massive attack is initiated against Sweden by the Soviet Airforce with the use of chemical weapons against military installations. No nukes are fired.
Finnland is asked to stand down and allow passage/overflight of Soviet forces. The Finnish government is split, but in the end the military decides to make a stand contrary to the government's policy. Finnland+Sweden are invaded, while the Soviet Union make it perfectly clear to NATO, that no interference will be tolerated.
Fighting is heavy with Soviet forces taking heavy casualties. NATO material aid is being supplied through Norway, but the Baltic is closed by the Soviet Navy.
After 3 weeks of fighting Finnland and then after 6 weeks Sweden surrender.

What happens next? The Soviet Union just strengthened its position and NATO lost face.
Or do you think NATO would interfere?
 

burmafrd

Banned
I don't think NATO could stay out of this and not look very weak.

All the peaceniks would have a hard time defending the Soviet Union, wouldn't they?
 
So, what if Sweden actually decides to develop nukes.

The PoD is 1963 with Sweden actually deciding to build the nukes, following the Cuban Missile Crisis. Work is continued on the programme, although the entire work is to be undertake secretly, in order not to make the Soviets aware of the progress.
By 1969 a lot of work has been finished, then however parts of the ongoing project are leaked and Moscow is surprised and shocked by the findings.
NATO and partly the US are shocked by news, although the CIA already knew about the project, but failed to report so to the Administration.
It's 1969 and the Soviets see a chance rising.
A massive attack is initiated against Sweden by the Soviet Airforce with the use of chemical weapons against military installations. No nukes are fired.
Finnland is asked to stand down and allow passage/overflight of Soviet forces. The Finnish government is split, but in the end the military decides to make a stand contrary to the government's policy. Finnland+Sweden are invaded, while the Soviet Union make it perfectly clear to NATO, that no interference will be tolerated.
Fighting is heavy with Soviet forces taking heavy casualties. NATO material aid is being supplied through Norway, but the Baltic is closed by the Soviet Navy.
After 3 weeks of fighting Finnland and then after 6 weeks Sweden surrender.

What happens next? The Soviet Union just strengthened its position and NATO lost face.
Or do you think NATO would interfere?

Hell they would. A Soviet Sweden makes Norway useless for NATO, and its position is very crucial for the air/naval defence of Britain and American supplies to the European theatre in any conventional war. They just might let Finland go, but Sweden, no way.

That's why we could afford to be so lazy with our defences; we knew NATO would bail us out no matter what.

(Or bomb us back to Stone Age if that'd be more feasible, but our politicians didn't think that far...:rolleyes:)
 
However, might the Soviets still try it?

They'd lose badly, of course. I could see a loss of the Baltics 30 years early in TTL, and Karelia goes back to Finland. Norway is made responsible for the Kola. Who gets St. Petersburg? Russia no longer has Baltic access or an icefree port in the north.

I could see eastern europe try to break out from under the USSR as a result of the military humiliation. And the USSR brutaly trying to repress them.

Communism is not considered morally equvialent to the west indeed!

When '68 rolls around it looks very different.
 
That NATO would indeed interfere is SPECULATION.

Sweden is not part of NATO and several NATO countries would be very careful about decinding to go all out against the USSR.
I understand that the position of Sweden is crucial for the defense of the GIUK gap, Britain and securing the Northern flank of NATO, but:

1. Do you think West Germany would interfere? This is the time of Ostpolitik rising. West Germany would gamble big and risk total annihilation in case of a conflict with the USSR.
2. Do you think France would interfere? Probably not.

There are people who claim the US would not escalate to nukes in the European battlefield on its own, if the USSR marched into West Germany. After all why gamble to lose New York, for defending Hamburg?

Do you think its a common decision among all NATO countries to try to save Sweden and risk WWIII with the USSR?
And besides, who says that NATO can win such a war (assuming the whole thing doesn't go nuclear and everyone is dead)?
It's 1969 and the US is busy in Vietnam still.
 
So, what if Sweden actually decides to develop nukes.

The PoD is 1963 with Sweden actually deciding to build the nukes, following the Cuban Missile Crisis. Work is continued on the programme, although the entire work is to be undertake secretly, in order not to make the Soviets aware of the progress.
By 1969 a lot of work has been finished, then however parts of the ongoing project are leaked and Moscow is surprised and shocked by the findings.
NATO and partly the US are shocked by news, although the CIA already knew about the project, but failed to report so to the Administration.
It's 1969 and the Soviets see a chance rising.
A massive attack is initiated against Sweden by the Soviet Airforce with the use of chemical weapons against military installations. No nukes are fired.
Finnland is asked to stand down and allow passage/overflight of Soviet forces. The Finnish government is split, but in the end the military decides to make a stand contrary to the government's policy. Finnland+Sweden are invaded, while the Soviet Union make it perfectly clear to NATO, that no interference will be tolerated.
Fighting is heavy with Soviet forces taking heavy casualties. NATO material aid is being supplied through Norway, but the Baltic is closed by the Soviet Navy.
After 3 weeks of fighting Finnland and then after 6 weeks Sweden surrender.

What happens next? The Soviet Union just strengthened its position and NATO lost face.
Or do you think NATO would interfere?


a) Sweden would never try to develop nukes in secret. It would simply be impossible, both political and technical. The Swedish Freedom of Information Act was introduced 1766 and the Swedish budget has no part for "black projects". A nuke program would begin with an open vote in Parlament and yearly written reports after that.

b) What should the Swedish government learn from the Cuba crisis that motivated a Swedish nuclear program? That the US wouldn't back down?

c) Why should the Soviets invade 1969? Directly after Prague, when the Soviet - China border conflict was at maximum?

d) The US had left very clear (but secret) guarantees to defend Sweden in case of Soviet invasion. The whole Swedish Air Force and airbase system was adapted to serve NATO aircraft. And the US would know about a nuclear program very early.

e) With Soviet access to Norway the Atlantic was far more difficult to defend. So yes, at least the US would interfere. And the Soviet knew that.

No, the described POD is extremly unlikely. I doubt that Swedish nukes would affect the Soviet Union at all. West German nukes, thats a different matter ...
 
There are people who claim the US would not escalate to nukes in the European battlefield on its own, if the USSR marched into West Germany. After all why gamble to lose New York, for defending Hamburg?

One of the reasons why it was so beneficial for the UK and France to have their own nuclear weapons. It got the US out of this bind.
 
a) Sweden would never try to develop nukes in secret. It would simply be impossible, both political and technical. The Swedish Freedom of Information Act was introduced 1766 and the Swedish budget has no part for "black projects". A nuke program would begin with an open vote in Parlament and yearly written reports after that.
Ok I didn't know that...

b) What should the Swedish government learn from the Cuba crisis that motivated a Swedish nuclear program? That the US wouldn't back down?
That nuclear war is a very real possibility.

c) Why should the Soviets invade 1969? Directly after Prague, when the Soviet - China border conflict was at maximum?
In this ATL, in order to stop the Swedes from getting the bomb.
I didn't want to make it too easy for the Soviets, that's why I chose this time as well.

d) The US had left very clear (but secret) guarantees to defend Sweden in case of Soviet invasion. The whole Swedish Air Force and airbase system was adapted to serve NATO aircraft. And the US would know about a nuclear program very early.
In this ATL, it was supposed not to know about it. That's the only way probably to let the Swedes get nukes after all. I presume the US would try to persuade the Swedes to drop their programme otherwise, so that the Soviets are not pissed off.

e) With Soviet access to Norway the Atlantic was far more difficult to defend. So yes, at least the US would interfere. And the Soviet knew that.
The problem is HOW to interfere.
With land forces in Sweden? With only air forces? Risking conflict in Germany?

No, the described POD is extremly unlikely. I doubt that Swedish nukes would affect the Soviet Union at all. West German nukes, thats a different matter ...
A conflict erupted between the US and the ISSR over a non-NATO member being attacked by the USSR could indeed be the USSR's only card in order to allow for a split inside NATO. With the rest of Europe getting pissed off at the USA for risking war all over Europe because of a non-NATO member (which was building nukes in secret!), we do have a reason for France to drop out and Germany ask for appeasment.
 
Top