In Sweden, discussions have resumed about the need to develop its own nuclear
weapons against the backdrop of general global instability.
This was reported by The Times.
After a series of recent publications in local newspapers, a debate has erupted in the country: should Sweden make a new attempt to obtain a bomb — independently or jointly with its new European allies in NATO?
Although this remains speculation at this pointand there is no evidence that the government
is seriously considering developing nuclear warheads, the topic has caused a stir in political circles.
In March, Jimmie Akesson, leader of the right-wing Swedish Democrats party, whose support
determines the fate of the ruling coalition, became the first prominent politician to express interest in the idea.
“Sweden has long had extensive experience in the field of nuclear technology. But political will required something else. I believe that in this situation, all options should be considered,” he said.
A similar position is shared by Alisa Teodorescu Mave, a member of the European Parliament from
the center-right Christian Democrats party, which is part of the current government. She proposes that Sweden join a common European nuclear arms strategy.
This is not an isolated European case. Poland has already requested to participate in French and American nuclear deterrence systems, and Prime Minister Donald Tusk has hinted that Poland may consider the possibility of developing its own nuclear weapons — although experts consider such a scenario technically and politically unlikely.
It remains unclear whether Sweden has sufficient technological and industrial resources to develop nuclear weapons without significant assistance from one of the existing nuclear powers.
The country has six nuclear power plants, which provide nearly a third of its electricity production, but the last of these was built more than 40 years ago.
Swedish nuclear weapons are not a new idea Swedenhas a rich institutional history of considering this issue, including decades of secret nuclear policy planning during the Cold War, when it was officially neutral but secretly had a nuclear security guarantee from the United States.
For more than two decades after the end of World War II, this country, which was a model of pacifism and international non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, quietly sought ways to build an atomic bomb.
It began in 1945, when the country’s scientists were tasked with investigating what new weapons the US had used in the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In 1948, the Chief of Defense Staff commissioned a study into Sweden’s capabilities to acquire nuclear weapons and produce a plutonium-based atomic bomb. The country’s leaders at the time believed in armed neutrality — and that nuclear weapons might be necessary to maintain that neutrality.
In the years that followed, Sweden prepared to achieve its goal of producing nuclear weapons, and the project spread throughout the country. Uranium was mined in central Sweden, and two nuclear reactors were built: one in Ägesta, south of Stockholm, and one in Marviken, outside Norrköping, although the latter was never put into operation. The plan was simple: plutonium would be obtained by splitting uranium in nuclear reactors.
The country then conducted its own secret non-nuclear test explosions in Swedish Lapland. The most powerful of these involved 61 tons of explosives.
By 1957, the CIA had concluded that Sweden had “a sufficiently developed reactor program to produce a number of nuclear weapons within the next five years.” Eight years later, analysts estimated that the country was only six months away from building a bomb.
However, the project had already begun to fade. This was partly due to the strength of the anti-nuclear movement in Swedish society, partly due to the enormous costs, and partly due to secret security guarantees from the United States.
But as the Russian-Ukrainian war demonstrates, any security guarantees may simply not be fulfilled. In 1996, Ukrainian politicians surrendered all their nuclear weapons due to intense pressure from the US and Russia. They even signed the Budapest Memorandum, in which they expressed respect for Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Eighteen years later, one of the signatories attacked Ukraine, while another signatory expressed concern about this.
Politics can often be very cynical.
Agreements between states are concluded in accordance with the specific interests of the parties involved. And when these interests change, the agreements concluded lose their force. No one wants to abide by them.
Is the world heading for a new round of nuclear armament? Perhaps. Can this still be avoided? Yes!
If all the guarantor countries provided Ukrainians with enough assistance to enable them to repel the aggressors. Perhaps then the question of how to protect oneself would not arise. It is possible to establish peace and security. However, it seems that not all global players are interested in stability and order.
Therefore, we should not be surprised if other countries follow the example of Swedish politicians.
