30 ms·
It’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
by sntl 2y ago
It’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).