this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2025
55 points (96.6% liked)

News

32520 readers
4316 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
rjc@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
55
Swedish hawks want their own nuclear weapon (www.thetimes.com)
submitted 16 hours ago by Mike3322@lemmy.ml to c/news@lemmy.world
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

"A series of recent articles in the country's press has ignited a debate on whether Sweden should make a fresh attempt to acquire the bomb — either alone or together with its new European allies in NATO," reports the British newspaper The Times.

The idea has now entered the country's political mainstream. However, scientists and experts are skeptical that Stockholm possesses the necessary technological and resource base to undertake such a project independently.

"A huge amount would need to be developed, including the entire infrastructure for producing the materials required for nuclear weapons, which would demand enormous investment. I think finding the necessary resources would be next to impossible," the article quotes nuclear weapons expert Martin Goliath as saying.

Sweden is not the first NATO country to consider producing its own nuclear weapons. In German expert circles, discussions involving politicians about the hypothetical possibility of developing such weapons also surface from time to time.

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] yesman@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago

Lots of countries are calculating that they cannot rely on Washington's nuclear "umbrella". The President of Peace has sparked a global nuclear arms race.

[–] SarcasticMan@lemmy.world 23 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I am not sure bird law allows hawks to own nuclear weapons.

[–] xep@discuss.online 7 points 15 hours ago

Don't be silly, birds aren't real.

[–] tal@olio.cafe 21 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

I'd bet against Sweden starting a nuclear weapons program, at least at a national level, but if they do, I have to say that this is going on the "why invading Ukraine has been pretry counterproductive in terms of Russia's security" list.

[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 7 points 16 hours ago

you realize they had one in the past?

[–] AmericanEconomicThinkTank@lemmy.world 6 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Eh.

Whats the harm in a little nuclear war here and there?

Maybe a small nuclear winter will offset all this global warming hullabaloo, keep things balanced.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 11 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

It’s not about nuclear war. It’s about “we’ll glass Moscow if you invade us”. That’s the only language the Russians understand apparently

[–] TheMightyCat@ani.social 6 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Good stuff, Ukraine has proven again that having a nuclear arsenal is really the only way to ensure a country's security when faced wirh a hostile nuclear armed neighbor.

[–] bufalo1973@piefed.social 3 points 14 hours ago

An even better example is North Korea.

[–] Mihies@programming.dev -1 points 14 hours ago

Unless you are a country not favored by West, then having nuclear weapons is a big no-no.

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org -2 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (3 children)

WTF, this is literally why you chose to join NATO last year. Whether the US care to participate or not is secondary. I understand that is worrying, but it's no reason to go all national.

I suspect there's some pretty dumb neocon/neolib rhetoric behind this, mongering fear to garner more votes.

edit: I'm not against NATO stepping up its game sans USA (and who knows, maybe that requires national action as above). But I'm leery of Sweden's current admin that is poisoned by far-right populism, just like in so many countries.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 13 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

No.

The fact of the matter is that the complete and total abrogation of the Budapest memorandum, wherein Ukraine gave up shitloads of old Soviet nukes in the 90s in exchange for sovereignty and territorial integrity guarantees… and that the guarantees were demonstrably not worth the paper they were printed on, created the conditions for nuclear weapon development to make a broad resurgence.

Nuclear proliferation is back with a vengeance. It has become abundantly clear that nuclear weapons are the absolute final word in unilaterally assuring sovereignty and territorial integrity guarantees. This is also Sweden quietly saying “we don’t necessarily trust the US to pony up if the ruskies invade”.

The way this could have been stopped is if, way back in 2014, the US had gotten directly involved in the shadow invasion Russia perpetrated. It’s an open secret that it was 100% orchestrated by the Kremlin. Also, for me, that was a very sharp fall from grace for Merkel - she was so goddamn focused on getting Russian oil that she didn’t even consider the implications on nuclear proliferation and overall global stability, nor Russia’s negative influence on said stability

[–] Skiluros@sh.itjust.works 11 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Why is is unreasonable to get nuclear weapons for smaller countries?

I am from Ukraine and we are the only country in the world that has given up nukes and look how that worked out.

[–] AntY@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

It’s expensive. When you’re allied with countries that already have nuclear weapons it’s much better to spend those money on conventional weapons. Nuclear weapons isn’t something that’s to be used. It’s only a deterrent against opponents that have nuclear weapons.

I think that one of the reasons why Russia is losing the war in Ukraine is that they have spent a lot of money on nuclear weapons. They have had no use of these weapons in a conventional war.

[–] Skiluros@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 hours ago

Agreed that they are expensive. But a massive invasion with many people losing their lives and destruction to the country is also expensive.

[–] lowleekun@ani.social 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I agree with you but tbh i feel like we should share those god damn nukes. It silly that every country should start their own programm. What a waste of money. U.S. and russia could give some to their "allies" but as we are more pawns and useful idiots they do not really trust us with these.

[–] Skiluros@sh.itjust.works 2 points 13 hours ago

Yes, the best option would be a Baltics/Scandinavia/Poland/Ukraine/Moldova nuclear alliance.

Ukraine already has ballistic missiles that can reach ~1,000 Km. It's not an ICBM, but the targets are Moscow, St Petersburg and Nishniy Novgorod, not Chukotka.