Nuclear weapons

Naive belief that nuclear weapons cannot be placed in Sweden

Wolfgang Hansson

This is a commenting text. Analysis and positions are the writer's.

Updated 14.06 | Published 13.54           

         

Soldiers in the US aircraft performing maintenance on a nuclear warhead at a military base in Montana in 2023. Photo: John Turner/AP

NATO is a nuclear alliance.

Sweden participates in NATO's nuclear weapons planning.

It would be naive to believe that there is no situation where nuclear weapons could be placed in Sweden.

But what constitutes a "war situation" that Prime Minister Kristersson talks about?

Quick version

• NATO is a nuclear weapons alliance where Sweden participates in nuclear weapons planning. Despite this, the government has not introduced an exception that prohibits the placement of nuclear weapons in Sweden. Something Norway and Denmark have done.
• Ulf Kristersson suggests that nuclear weapons can be placed in the country during a "war situation". This could lead to increased pressure for a legal ban on the placement of nuclear weapons, modeled after Spain and Lithuania.
• Situational changes, such as war, can lead to the placement of nuclear weapons, but it is up to the Swedish government to define "war situation".         
  

The government has tried in various ways to duck when it comes to placing nuclear weapons in Sweden. While Norway and Denmark obtained an exception that prohibits the placement of nuclear weapons in peacetime, the Swedish government ignored it.

The prime minister, the defense minister and other representatives are content to state that there is no desire from the US or other NATO countries to place nuclear weapons in Sweden. Therefore, no exception is needed. It is stated in Sweden's treaty with NATO that no nuclear weapons can be placed here without the approval of the Swedish government.

The message from the government has always been that it is not relevant.

Now, however, Ulf Kristersson is staring at the door by saying that it may still be relevant to place nuclear weapons in Sweden in the event of war or "a war situation".

I expect that this will lead to an outcry from organizations such as Swedish Peace and parties such as the left and the Green Party.

The requirements for Sweden to legislate on a ban will be intensified.

Spain and Lithuania have a law that prohibits the placement of nuclear weapons on their territory even in war.

Sweden could also enact such a law. There is nothing in the NATO treaty that prohibits it. However, it is nothing that would be applauded in either Washington, London or Paris.

Such a law would also be, in a sense, illogical.

Blow to self-image

When we joined NATO, we also joined a nuclear alliance. Sweden is a member of the Nuclear Planning Group, which manages collective nuclear weapons planning. We will also participate in military exercises involving nuclear weapons.

It was a price Sweden had to pay to enjoy NATO's protection.

For some, it is guaranteed to be a heavy blow to the Swedish self-image. Sweden has always been a leader in the work for nuclear disarmament.

But for NATO, the American nuclear umbrella is absolutely central as protection. In a war, situations may arise where NATO is prepared to use nuclear weapons to defend its member states and their territory.

The role of nuclear weapons is to act as a deterrent. The idea is that Russia or some other enemy will find it too risky and costly to start a war.

The threshold for using nuclear weapons is extremely high. Hopefully so high that they will never be used. But as long as Russia has a large number of nuclear weapons, NATO can hardly get rid of theirs.

All nuclear disarmament must be mutual and based on strong trust between the various parties. Something like that does not exist today. The conditions for disarmament have rarely been worse than today.

But it is not where the nuclear weapons are located that determines whether they will be used, but the seriousness of a given security policy crisis.

There are nuclear weapons here

Since the war of aggression against Ukraine began, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin has repeatedly threatened the West with using nuclear weapons. Threats that fortunately so far have not been put into action.

But Putin's careless talk has, for the first time in many decades, caused the world to fear that nuclear weapons, against all reason, might be used.

In order for nuclear weapons to be able to pose a threat and thus also a deterrent, they must be located somewhere. Today, the United States has nuclear weapons located in five countries: Germany, the Netherlands, Turkey, Italy and Belgium. Although none of the countries officially admit that there are any nuclear weapons on their territory.

Test firing of a Minuteman rocket in California in 2020. Photo: Senior Airman Hanah Abercormbie / AP

At the moment, it is difficult to see why the US or the rest of NATO would want to place nuclear weapons in more countries. But it can change in case of war.

If Russia attacks Sweden, it is war. But what Kristersson calls a "war situation" can be something completely different. One could argue that this is what we are experiencing today with a war in our immediate vicinity and a rare major defense rearmament.

Without a law that expressly prohibits the stationing of nuclear weapons in Sweden, it is up to the government to interpret what is included in the term "war situation". Such assessments may vary depending on the composition of the government.

In Sweden, there is a tradition that important security policy decisions must be made by broad consensus. Therefore, it was only when the Social Democrats gave up their opposition that a NATO application became possible.

Similarly, it should be self-evident that no nuclear weapons are placed in Sweden without the government having a very clear majority behind it.

It is naive to believe that nuclear weapons could never be placed in Sweden. But it's also not very likely that it will ever happen. Especially not if Sweden opposes it.