4 ms·

The Russians could also lob a tactical nuke at Malmo and take their ships out into the Atlantic as well. For sure the US isn't going to risk a major US city to

The Russians could also lob a tactical nuke at Malmo and take their ships out into the Atlantic as well. For sure the US isn't going to risk a major US city to defend Sweden, so there's also that. Also, if memory serves, flattening the Copenhagen/Malmo area was considered an obvious Russian opening move during the cold war, if things had gotten hot.

kryptiskt 7y ago
There is no such thing as tactical nuke warfare.
- erdos4d 7y ago
  Wiki disagrees with you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon
  - Talanes 7y ago
    Actually, I think the last line of the intro makes their case pretty well: "No tactical nuclear weapon has ever been used in a combat situation." Yes, the weapons exist, but suggesting that they could just be casually employed without massive global repercussions is absurd.
lb1lf 7y ago
-As kryptiskt has already pointed out, tactical nuking... isn't. Besides, if things were getting hot, the Swedes (or anyone!) would be fools to keep their naval assets in port; doubly so when those assets are largely autonomous and easily hidden, like submarines. The Norwegian navy also operates a few diesel-electric subs; in cold war days, the plan was to let the Soviet surface fleet enter the fjords, then give them hell - the point being that just about any Norwegian population center or strategic asset is - drumroll - by a fjord. Hence an invading navy would have to venture into the fjords to support the land forces - the fjords packing subs, coastal artillery, torpedo batteries and lots of observation posts to make the stay interesting. Noone thought the Norwegian armed forces could repel a determined aggressor - the idea was to keep the foe busy (bleeding profusely in the process) until NATO allies could arrive. The other Nordic countries probably had similar strategies.
csomar 7y ago
Nuking Malmo doesn't take out the subs though. These subs can stay there underwater for 6 months sabotaging Russian activity. Nuking their city will give them a good reason to fight until death.
myrandomcomment 7y ago
The lobbying of nukes by the Russians would result 100% in an first strike attack by the US. Once they have shown that they are willing to use the nukes the only logical tactic is to try to cut the head off quickly. Right now the odds are on the US could destroy a good percent of the Russian nukes before they receive the order to launch as the US have a better accuracy and quicker launch time. If you wait then you are waiting for them to launch first which means even when you have time to response you have lost. This is the real world math that results in a less screwed outcome (for some meaning of screwed).
- mongol 7y ago
  Considering that scenario today, it would be president Trump who would make that call, thus I don't think so. I can not even imagine what he would do in such a situation but I don't think he would strike Russia.
stefanfisk 7y ago
Nuking Malmö is equivalent to nuking Copenhagen, and after that NATO is in the game.

kryptiskt 7y ago

There is no such thing as tactical nuke warfare.

erdos4d 7y ago
Wiki disagrees with you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon
- Talanes 7y ago
  Actually, I think the last line of the intro makes their case pretty well: "No tactical nuclear weapon has ever been used in a combat situation." Yes, the weapons exist, but suggesting that they could just be casually employed without massive global repercussions is absurd.

lb1lf 7y ago

-As kryptiskt has already pointed out, tactical nuking... isn't. Besides, if things were getting hot, the Swedes (or anyone!) would be fools to keep their naval assets in port; doubly so when those assets are largely autonomous and easily hidden, like submarines. The Norwegian navy also operates a few diesel-electric subs; in cold war days, the plan was to let the Soviet surface fleet enter the fjords, then give them hell - the point being that just about any Norwegian population center or strategic asset is - drumroll - by a fjord. Hence an invading navy would have to venture into the fjords to support the land forces - the fjords packing subs, coastal artillery, torpedo batteries and lots of observation posts to make the stay interesting. Noone thought the Norwegian armed forces could repel a determined aggressor - the idea was to keep the foe busy (bleeding profusely in the process) until NATO allies could arrive. The other Nordic countries probably had similar strategies.

csomar 7y ago

Nuking Malmo doesn't take out the subs though. These subs can stay there underwater for 6 months sabotaging Russian activity. Nuking their city will give them a good reason to fight until death.

myrandomcomment 7y ago

The lobbying of nukes by the Russians would result 100% in an first strike attack by the US. Once they have shown that they are willing to use the nukes the only logical tactic is to try to cut the head off quickly. Right now the odds are on the US could destroy a good percent of the Russian nukes before they receive the order to launch as the US have a better accuracy and quicker launch time. If you wait then you are waiting for them to launch first which means even when you have time to response you have lost. This is the real world math that results in a less screwed outcome (for some meaning of screwed).

mongol 7y ago
Considering that scenario today, it would be president Trump who would make that call, thus I don't think so. I can not even imagine what he would do in such a situation but I don't think he would strike Russia.

stefanfisk 7y ago

Nuking Malmö is equivalent to nuking Copenhagen, and after that NATO is in the game.