The debate over nuclear weapons is shaking the Nordic countries

CopenhagenThe idea that the Nordic countries should develop a joint nuclear weapons program would have been considered absurd and ridiculous just a few years ago. But now times have changed, and the uncertainty over whether the United States is no longer a reliable ally is generating profound Concern in a region that fears Russian aggressionIn this context, a question is circulating that would have been unthinkable before, but which is starting to be heard among various personalities and academics, who are questioning whether the time has come for the Nordic countries to build their own nuclear protection umbrella.

Sweden's main newspaper, the Dagens NyheterA few weeks ago, I pointed out in my editorial that the issue should be taken seriously: "Nobody wants to talk about Swedish nuclear weapons, but we have to." In recent weeks, we have also seen Sweden and Denmark agree to cooperate with France to jointly build a European nuclear deterrent, even though the two Scandinavian countries still reject the possibility of storing nuclear weapons on their territory in peacetime, a clause that has been in effect since 1957. Conversely, Finland has announced that it will change its language: "This change aims to provide complete protection for Finland in all situations," stated its defense minister, Antti Häkkänen.

According to Swedish security policy analyst David Carlqvist, the reason the Nordic countries are changing their stance and opening the door to considering their nuclear defense umbrella is that "as things stand now, European security depends on the goodwill and solidarity of Donald Trump, and on the humanity of Vlad the Impaler," the analyst told [the press]. Dagens Nyheter.

From Norway, Lieutenant Colonel and Defense Academy analyst Johannes Kibsgaard justified in an article published in the specialized defense magazine War on the Rocks The time has come for the Nordic countries to develop a common nuclear arsenal, given the doubts about whether Europe can continue to rely on the US nuclear deterrent. Kibsgaard argued that the Nordic countries "are well-functioning, wealthy, democratic societies; therefore, their governments must have the courage and responsibility to open this debate." He is not alone in this view, as Jeppe Kofod, Denmark's Foreign Minister from 2019 to 2022, stated in the media Altinget that "a Nordic defense union with nuclear weapons is not just a dream, but an urgent necessity."

Analysts who argue that the Nordic countries should develop a joint nuclear weapons program contend that the deterrent umbrella currently provided by France and the United Kingdom does not offer sufficient guarantees, "since their arsenals are too small to have a real deterrent effect, and in reality, these countries have also relied on the American umbrella," according to an interview in ARA. To this argument, former Danish minister Kofod adds the risk that "in both countries, right-wing populist parties are on the verge of gaining power, and who knows if they will adopt an isolationist stance, following the example of the US."

A drastic change in the face of nuclear skepticism

One of the main arguments put forward by analysts opposed to the Nordic nuclear program is that developing an atomic program from scratch "would take a long time, cost a lot of money, and involve a great deal of effort," as Swedish military expert Lars Wedin stated. However, Johannes Kibsgaard maintains that the economic factor would not be a major obstacle if Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland ultimately decided to cooperate on the cost, basing his opinion on a study he conducted on the current cost of France's nuclear program. "It would mean that over the next ten years, the five countries would allocate 1% of their GDP. It's expensive weaponry, but if we prioritize it, we can afford it," he asserts.

Another question experts are asking is who would be responsible for pressing the red button in the event of an attack. Kibsgaard proposes a model in which "countries take turns without the rest of the world knowing which Nordic state is responsible for activating nuclear weapons at any given time." In this way, he argues, "all countries would have the same deterrent effect and share the same share of power."

While the idea of ​​developing a Nordic nuclear weapons program may be very appealing to some analysts, for others, it remains a very bad idea. Rens van Munster, a researcher at the Danish Institute of International Affairs (DIIS), asserts that breaking the nuclear non-proliferation treaty signed by all the Nordic countries would have very serious consequences. "We would be the first to do so, along with North Korea," warns Munster, "which could lead to an escalation in the nuclear arms race." "We wouldn't be treated like Iran," he says, "but it doesn't take much imagination to see the stance China would take, especially at a time when Europe is once again looking to Beijing for trade agreements."

On the other hand, another obstacle that Munster points out is that it would go against the historical tradition and character of Nordic societies to promote détente and diplomacy in conflicts, since "skepticism towards nuclear weapons is deeply rooted, and suddenly becoming a nuclear power is too drastic a change."