5 ms·
An implicit deal we have made with many other states is that in exchange for managing the peace, they will not develop or further develop nuclear capability. T
by mcculley 3y ago
An implicit deal we have made with many other states is that in exchange for managing the peace, they will not develop or further develop nuclear capability.
To me, that is worth a lot.
- zirgs 3y agoYup - if we didn't accept Finland and Sweden into NATO then their only option to prevent a Russian invasion would be to develop nukes and aim them at St. Petersburg.
- actionfromafar 3y agoI’m not sure what the joke is. Sweden had an atomic bomb program which was dropped in the 1970s after assurances from the US to extend its “nuclear umbrella” to protect Sweden.
- zirgs 3y agoSo if the USSR were to attack Sweden then what would the USA do exactly?
- mcculley 3y agoDo you mean Russia or USSR? It is unclear if you are asking about a hypothetical event in the past or a hypothetical event in the future after ratification of Sweden’s NATO membership.
- actionfromafar 3y agoI don’t know. Most of it is still classified, but whatever it was, it was enough to assure Swedish governments of the time. (70s - early 90s)
- zirgs 3y agoInteresting that Sweden sees modern Russia as a bigger threat than the USSR. Whatever there was before is not enough now and they want a full NATO membership instead.
- actionfromafar 3y agoWhatever there was before, was dismantled late eighties or early nineties, it’s hard to tell for sure. One big reason Sweden jumped into NATO now is that the Swedish military is, not exactly a shadow of its former self, but very small. If Sweden would have had an equivalent of the military power it had in say, 1991, I doubt a NATO application would have been made, or at least not as hastily.