14 ms·
Sweden has long opposed nuclear weapons, but once tried to build them
- gnabgib 2y agoArticle title: Sweden has long opposed nuclear weapons – but it once tried to build them
- 082349872349872 2y agoNot mentioned in the article: for MAD reasons, it's much easier to build shelters if everyone knows you have no first strike capability. see also https://msbgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/nearby/index.html?appid=8bfc89e7c6064bc181c6a1a6bbac2fa3&sliderDistance=1 https://msbgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/nearby/index.htm...
- vq 2y agoAlso not mentioned: SAAB 36[0], the supersonic bomber intended to carry nukes. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_36 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_36
- mepian 2y agoThe wind tunnel model reminds me of the SR-71.
- resource_waste 2y ago> it's much easier to build shelters if everyone knows you have no first strike capability. Why is it easier?
- yes_man 2y agoI would assume same reason why in the nuclear warfare logic, it’s a threat to build anti-missile tech. If you start building nuclear shelters and also have capability for first strike, your adversaries are within their rights to think you are escalating, since you are increasing your population’s resiliency to a second strike (hence making it less costly for you to strike first).
- 082349872349872 2y ago^ this was what I had been thinking while writing
- hbossy 2y agoYou are building shelters meant for protection against collateral from your neighbors getting hit and wide area, city-destroying, Samson-option style air-burst attacks, not bunker-busting precision strike surface detonations designed specifically to crack your underground command centers and silos. It also guarantees you a longer time window between first detonation and you being targeted, meaning less dense shelter network and easier evacuation logistics.
- ein0p 2y agoIt takes about 15 minutes between the launch and nuclear detonation halfway across the world. I actually checked where the nearest nuclear shelter is where I live I couple years ago. It’s 35 minutes away if there’s zero traffic, which is unrealistic. So if a nuke strike were to occur my best bet is still to shelter in place in my suburban basement. The strike targets will likely be 15 to 25 miles away.
- throwaway11460 2y agoThe joys of living in central Europe - I have a nuclear bunker in my building.
- lostlogin 2y agoWhat do you do once everything is nuked? You just come out and hold your breath?
- throwaway11460 2y agoYes, you come out after the fallout and hope for the best. There used to be supplies during the cold war, probably not anymore. Masks and some anti radiation gear is still there though.
- 48864w6ui 2y agoOurs tend to be full of wine, skis, and other bric-a-brac
- victorbjorklund 2y agoHow did that work out for Ukraine?
- nocoiner 2y agoI was surprised to see that Sweden transferred its remaining plutonium to the United States around a decade ago. I would have assumed they’d have kept it around, just to keep their options open - it’s not like they were in an immediate post-USSR situation where unpaid nuclear scientists and unsecured cores were potentially up for sale and there’s a strong international interest in shutting that down. But then again, if Sweden did keep their options open, it’s not exactly the kind of thing they’d advertise - and the public story of the plutonium transfer is useful plausible deniability. Japan, obviously, for a variety of reasons, doesn’t have nukes, but it seems pretty clear they could have an arsenal that’s functional as a deterrent in months, if not weeks. I wouldn’t be surprised if Sweden’s current doctrine is similar to that (though now being a formal member of NATO takes some pressure off that backup option).
- alephnerd 2y ago> they could have an arsenal that’s functional as a deterrent in months, if not weeks Japan is what's called a threshold/latent nuclear power. These are countries with the ability to build nuclear weapons immediately, but haven't turned the switch yet. Taiwan, Iran, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Brazil, Mexico, and South Korea are other threshold powers, and Saudi and the UAE are pressing for plutonium enrichment capabilities in the next few years as well. Generally speaking, a country with a space program and a civilian fuel enrichment program can be safely assumed to be a latent nuclear power. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency
- nickfromseattle 2y agoThe Wikipedia article didn't have any info on ramp time. My understanding is it requires building enrichment facilitates, and processing materials. Is this not a multi-year effort?
- alephnerd 2y ago> Is this not a multi-year effort If you have a strong civilian nuclear power program, the ramp up time is minimal (weeks to months), as fast breeder reactors are a dual use technology. If the country also has a domestic space program, you can safely assume they are also working on building IRBM capabilities
- amadeuspagel 2y agoYes Ukraine showed the world that nuclear disarmament was possible -- and what the consequences are.
- alephnerd 2y agoSouth Africa disarmed their nuclear weapons as well and showed the benefits of that.
- FrustratedMonky 2y agoWho was going to invade South Africa? Ukraine proved you should keep them.
- alephnerd 2y agoThere are 2 existential crises that every country risks: 1. The worry of invasion 2. The worry of implosion South Africa in the 1990s was at a very risk of imploding into civil war. Access to nuclear weapons would have made this risk of implosion even worse. This was a similar worry most of the world had about Ukraine and Kazakhstan after the USSR collapsed - look at what happened to Tajikistan, Georgia, Moldova, Armenia, and Azerbaijan in the 1990s. Hell, there was even an attempted coup in Moscow in the 1990s. The fewer countries that have nuclear weapons, the easier it is to decrease the chances of the next conflict (war or civil war) using nuclear weapons.
- fractallyte 2y agoBut trusting Russia with stewardship of nuclear weapons, all the while knowing its deplorable record with regards to its neighbors? That was a colossal geopolitical mistake, and the consequences were predictable. And I would posit that the aim of limiting countries with nuclear weapons is simplistic. If a nuclear power decides to terrorize a non-nuclear, but industrially advanced neighbor, the victim is likely to acquire a nuclear capability, one way or another, either now or in the future. It hasn't happened yet with Ukraine, but I believe it is inevitable. Furthermore, that nuclear capability will come with a (justified) grudge. I would certainly want to vaporize my bully. The end result is that the probability of nuclear conflict has increased, not decreased.
- Frummy 2y agoI have a secret book with some attached articles and notes that I found in a bookshop. e: Seriously.. I have the most insider information about this and a bad initial condition due to someone not finding the link makes no one interested to ask about the insider information book that I bought specifically for dopamine hits when someone happens to discuss things about these topics
- kzrdude 2y agoThe your first visible submission is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33107108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33107108 which is not a document
- Frummy 2y agoOh this site is so friendly to fresh accounts, to shadowremove submissions. Here it is, about Lise Meitner: A Passion for Science (archive.ph) https://archive.ph/z9i46 https://archive.ph/z9i46 1 point by Frummy on July 16, 2022 | past The other newspaper article enclosed in the nuclear book is about italy with stuff underlined. There's also notes and calculations, now that I looked in some other pages. And a poem.
- Frummy 2y agoThe book is from the institute now defunct given to nobel laureate Manne Siegbahn
- alephnerd 2y agoWhat's the name of the book? But yes, Italy is a latent nuclear power as well, and had a semi-active nuclear weapons program until the 1980s [0] [0] - https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/book/nuclear_latency_and_hedging_-_concepts_history_and_issues.pdf https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/docum...
- 2y ago
- phdprofessor 2y ago[flagged]
- swader999 2y agoThere's often talk about countries not pulling their weight in NATO. What's typically not in the conversation is that many of these countries have agreed not to have nuclear forces. They rely on alliances instead and the world is likely safer. It might be simpler, perhaps less costly to ditch a large military, treaty obligations and just rely on a hundred nukes for invasion deterrence.
- wbl 2y agoA hundred nukes is surprisingly few. Sure you burn down Moscow but I doubt the orcs care. Nukes can't even kill infantry in trenches cost effectively let alone tanks.
- ben_w 2y agoOne nuke in the right place (around 400 km up) destroys a power grid, meaning oil isn't getting pumped, delivered to the refinery, turned into fuel, sent to the troop carriers, so the mechanised infantry are now limited to foot travel, and even simple bullets aren't going to be mass-produced and delivered to the front lines.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> might be simpler, perhaps less costly to ditch a large military, treaty obligations and just rely on a hundred nukes for invasion deterrence This is how you get nuclear war, or at least the normalisation of tactical nukes on the battlefield [1]. It's the world we're heading towards, given the direction American deterrence credibility has been heading. [1] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2022/11/18/the-war-in-ukraine-a-major-third-nuclear-age-crisis_6004714_23.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2022/11/18/the-war...
- baybal2 2y ago[dead]
- hackerlight 2y agoThey are starting to pull their weight now. The problem with your idea is accidents[1] and madmen. In a world where equipment always functions properly and humans aren't capable of forming groups like ISIS, then sure. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_close_calls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_close_calls
- sntl 2y agoIt’s a good article but there’s an important point they didn’t mention. Sweden didn’t produce its own missiles. It relied on the US for missile technology. The US didn’t want Sweden to have atomic weapons, and would have cut them off from the missiles. Sweden’s leaders also felt that having atomic weapons would make them a target for a first strike. To this day the UK relies on the US for missiles (Trident are what the missiles are called, not the actual submarines).
- Gravityloss 2y agoSweden does have indigenous aircraft and submarines. I think missiles are easier than those.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Sweden does have indigenous aircraft and submarines. I think missiles are easier than those Less complex, but a different set of engineering problems. Sort of like how genetic engineering is more complex than basic woodworking, even though expertise in the former doesn't make mastering the latter massively easier.
- T-A 2y agoFrom the article, the idea was to build 100 tactical weapons They would not have been put on top of ICBMs. Delivery would have been by aircraft or even artillery.
- dboreham 2y agoThe UK did have an (undeployed) launch capability into the 1970s. There's a history of the US making allies prove they can achieve some capability, then selling them the same capability at lower cost. US concerns at the small size of the UK polaris force probably factored into the sale of Trident missiles (which allow many more mirvs).
- qualifiedai 2y agoSeeing how USA and EU failed to provide enough support to Ukraine it is crystal clear that every country now must acquire nuclear weapons and means of delivery. Only MAD is a real guarantee for security and independence.
- DevNinjaS 2y agoIf everyone has nuclear weapons, humanity will destroy itself.
- Cyph0n 2y agoThe only long-term equilibrium states are: no one does or everyone does.
- dragonwriter 2y ago“Everyone does” have nuclear weapons, where “everyone” includes more than one independent sovereignty, is not a long-term equilibrium state, it is a metastable state, prone to rapid devolution to “no one does”, possibly with a side order if “there is no one to”.
- Cyph0n 2y agoI don’t know what you are responding to. I clearly stated that equilibrium is only attainable if everyone has access to nuclear weapons - as in every single sovereign nation - or no one. I prefer an equilibrium of the latter kind.
- dragonwriter 2y agoI am responding to you, and disagreeing with your claim that the first of your options is a viable long-term equilibrium, contending that that is only true under the degenerate condition of a single sovereignty, otherwise it is a metastable state [0], not a stable long-term equilibrium. [0] https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100153247 https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority...
- __turbobrew__ 2y ago> Sweden thereby joined a unique club of nations – which includes Switzerland, Ukraine and South Africa – who gave up their nuclear weapons programmes and showed the world that nuclear disarmament was possible. I bet Ukraine is regretting their decision right now.
- justrealist 2y agoSince 2014.
- vbezhenar 2y agoThey didn't have a choice. Nuclear weapons require significant investments to keep them working, Ukraine was a poor country back then. They also had incredible pressure from the other huge countries, so if they would keep them, they probably would be sanctioned like Iran. I live in Kazakhstan which also gave up its USSR nuclear legacy and it was the only sane way to go. What Ukraine should have done back then is get better guarantees for this deal. Not some sketchy "Memorandums" which bind to nothing.
- dtx1 2y ago> They didn't have a choice. They had a shitload of nukes. That gives you a lot of choices. They just sadly chose wrong thinking that the world is better of with them not having them. Should have kept a few.
- azinman2 2y agoAnd do you think if they had they’d have nuked Russia by now? And then what?
- rapidaneurism 2y agoThe whole point of nuclear weapons is that people don't attack you because you will use them. So if they had them Russia would not have attacked.
- Ekaros 2y agoA mistake. Every single country should have nukes and effective capability to deliver them to anywhere on the globe. It is only reasonable deterrent that would work against the evil imperialist countries.
- daghamm 2y agoSure... lets hope those countries taken over by ISIS lunetics only use it as deterrence.
- Ekaros 2y agoIf Iraq and Afganistan could have entirely justifiably target enemy combatants on USA soil, those illegal and immoral invasions might not have happened. Thus ISIS might not have gone like it did.
- daghamm 2y agoI know what you are trying to say, but please consider this: Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against his own people as well as a neighbouring country he was trying to invade.
- pvaldes 2y agoChemical weapons made in Germany If I remember correctly. There is an easy fix for that. Don't sell chemical weapons to dictators so you don't need to lament later that "Oh, but, but, they used our product against people!". Yup, what do you expected? killing people is the only purpose for that stuff.
- stale2002 2y agoOr maybe they would have just nuked a random enemy of theirs that was in that local area of the world. Of which, I am sure there are many. The game theory of nukes doesn't work if irrational actor have control of them. There are also lot of examples of authoritarian dictators committing warcrimes in that part of the world. And all it takes it one to cause large amounts of damage, if they have a nuke.
- Yeul 2y agoIt was pretty obvious as the cold war began that European nations would seek nuclear weapons as a deterrent to USSR invasion. The US preferred to maintain its exclusivity so came up with a pretty a good deal: we'll place our nukes in every NATO country. This also made sure that no future American administration could slide back into isolation. Our wars are your wars.