WI: Sweden Pursues its Nuclear Weapon's Program

Alright, so in the late 40's the 50's and early 60's Sweden had a Nuclear Weapons Program.

This this was a result of Sweden's Armed Neutrality and the threat of the (nuclear) USSR to the East.

The program's goal was the production of 100 nuclear warheads over a ten year period.

However in the 60's as a result of budget constraints Sweden had to choose between funding its nuclear program or a new Fighter Jet,
the Saab 37 'Viggen' and in the end they went with funding the jet and scrapped their entire nuclear program.


Now, what if Sweden went with continuing to fund its nuclear program and eventually produced and tested a nuclear weapon
(say in 1975) and developed a nuclear stockpile comparable to the other European Nuclear Powers, how would this affect Sweden,
Europe and the world?
 

MacCaulay

Banned
I'd miss the Viggen. That was a nice plane. I think they ended up selling that on the export market to Austria or someone.
 
Sweden had the capabilities to create nuclear weapons in the late 50s, early 60s. 1965 is probably a good date for the first weapon.

The basic idea was deterrance, to be able to put a nuclear weapon down on Leningrad woudl deter the Soviets from using nuclear weapons on us.

I guess the SAAB 36 would not be cancelled in this timeline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_36
 
Viggen was considered to be necessary for delivering the bombs (Sweden didn't have the space industry it does now at that time), so no Viggen, no bombs, unless they develop the SAAB 36 of course ;).

Personally, I would prefer all three plans going forward. Lets say that the Swedish economy suffers a downturn in the late 50's and the government decides to use deficit spending to bring it around.
 
Alright, so in the late 40's the 50's and early 60's Sweden had a Nuclear Weapons Program.

This this was a result of Sweden's Armed Neutrality and the threat of the (nuclear) USSR to the East.

The program's goal was the production of 100 nuclear warheads over a ten year period.

However in the 60's as a result of budget constraints Sweden had to choose between funding its nuclear program or a new Fighter Jet,
the Saab 37 'Viggen' and in the end they went with funding the jet and scrapped their entire nuclear program.


Now, what if Sweden went with continuing to fund its nuclear program and eventually produced and tested a nuclear weapon
(say in 1975) and developed a nuclear stockpile comparable to the other European Nuclear Powers, how would this affect Sweden,
Europe and the world?

Big butterflies. Very big.
Frankly so many of them that I am sure to miss some in the list below.

a) Totally changed interior politics in Sweden. The social democrats will have to kick their left-leaning disarmement members out of the party, but problably after a very loud and damaging internal fight. Sweden would take several big steps to the right/conservativa/non-socialist part of the political spectrum.

b) The definition of "neutrality" would be very different than IOTL, and not so positive.

c) More difficult to create a treaty of non-profilation of nukes, it a small neutral country already have gotten nukes. Why wouldn't Taiwan have nukes if Sweden have it?

d) Nukes are expensive to create, store and have delivery systems for. Either Sweden must spend more on defence or change priorities in the defense budget. Probably less home-grown weapon systems like Viggen and not a WW2 type army. Which could destablize Scandinavia.

e) Sweden would probably not be associated with demonstrations against the Vietnam War. It is difficult to do that, when your own country is developing nuclear weapons. Combined with a) it would lead to a more wester-oriented Sweden and less "hug the dictators" movement during the 70s.

But the biggest question is why? Sweden already had nuclear guarantees from the US.
 
b) The definition of "neutrality" would be very different than IOTL, and not so positive.

Why do you think that?
Neutrality is simply not being on any side, it does'nt mean you have to be anti-nuclear, I mean look at India, a leader in the non-aligned movement and a nuclear state.


c) More difficult to create a treaty of non-profilation of nukes, it a small neutral country already have gotten nukes. Why wouldn't Taiwan have nukes if Sweden have it?

The Non-Prolifration stuff possibly, I'm not sure it'd have a huge affect though.

I get what you're saying about possibly more non-aligned nations having nukes, however Taiwan really is'nt a good example since it's not really a neutral nation and the PRC threatening it if it develops nukes prevents that.


e) Sweden would probably not be associated with demonstrations against the Vietnam War. It is difficult to do that, when your own country is developing nuclear weapons. Combined with a) it would lead to a more wester-oriented Sweden and less "hug the dictators" movement during the 70s.

Well having nuclear weapons does'nt make you pro-war, so I don't see why not.


But the biggest question is why? Sweden already had nuclear guarantees from the US.

Perhaps it wanted to be totally independent and militarily self-reliant?
 
Yea, this makes non-proliferations a whole new game. Not sure about Taiwan, but what about states like Iran? Will the Shah want his own Bomb?

This brings in a whole new dimension to IKEA jokes....

:D

Are you suggesting the Bombs would start to wobble after a few years no matter how tightly you screwed down the hardware? :D
 
Even Switzerland hat it's own nuclear weapon program in the 1960s, so I guess it was just the fashion of the time...
 
Top