The radio documentary on the Swedish nuclear weapons program mentions several reasons why the project was halted in the mid-sixties: Changing public opinion, Sweden signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty, budget cuts because of the development of the new viggen fighter jet and the US agreeing to put us under their nuclear umbrella.
But where did you hear that the US demanded radio espionage in return? As I understand it, most of the documents concerning the program are still classified or didn’t exist on paper in the first place so nobody really knows what the deal was with the USA.
No doubt Sweden did perform radio espionage on NATO’s behalf, most notably during the DC-3/Catalina crisis in 1952 when a Swedish spy plane was shot down by the USSR, but this is the first I hear about a connection to the nuclear weapons program.
The only reason we aren’t is that Iraq went so badly. If Iraq had gone as well as Bush/Chaney’s rose colored glasses said it would, Iran would have been next on the chopping block. Like Iraq it was one of Bush’s axes of evil, and we would have already conquered the countries on either side of it, so it was the clear next target. This is why Iran’s interest in nukes took on extra urgency.
That’s really the issue; if Canada were to develop some nukes, I don’t really think anyone would be too disturbed; they have a reputation for being responsible on the world stage. But North Korea and Iran? They’re hardly responsible, and are known for crazy talk, terrorism sponsorship and being generally destabilizing and unpleasant. Not a good combination for nuclear weapons.
Let me get this straight: We invaded Iraq, which had oil, but that went poorly; so we didn’t invade Iran, which also has oil. But if North Korea had oil, we would have invaded it. So the folly in Iraq prevented the invasion of Iran, but it doesn’t prevent the invasion of North Korea, the lack of oil does.
ISIS? About as likely to happen as America’s nukes ending up with a Mexican cartel.
See, this is why I’d be OK with Iranian nukes: It would make it all but impossible for the Americans to do to Iran what they did to Iraq, which - to my mind - is a big, big plus.
Right! See, it works exactly like my tiger repellent devices. Iran doesn’t have nukes today, so we haven’t invaded them to steal their oil or rape their sheep, but if they HAD nukes then the US would never invade them like we did Iraq! Seriously, there hasn’t been one freaking tiger attack at my house since I put the new system in. There weren’t any before either, but I knew that once I put it in it would be the only thing keeping those damned tigers at bay! And it’s worked like a charm.
Out of curiosity, would you have been okay with Afghanistan under the Taliban government possessing nuclear weapons? If not, why the differing judgment on Afghanistan vs Iran possessing nuclear weapons?
Hey, I didn’t say anything about North Korea, I was just answering why we weren’t in Terran despite them having oil.
I wasn’t talking about ISIS specifically more along the lines of what happens if Iran turns into the next Syria, such that the central government collapses and there are multiple insurgencies fighting for control. Throw nukes in the mix and things get scary.
I probably agree with you on this for the most part, but in a realpolitik sense its always best to have more options which is why it the leaders of these various countries want to limit Iran’s access.
Short answer: I can’t see Iran using nukes for anything but deterrence. With the Taliban, however, I could easily imagine nuclear strikes all over the damn place.
Gotcha. Me, I don’t see Iran descending into civil war anytime soon. Here’s hoping I’m right.
Are they? How common are they and over what time period? I can think of, well, 2 in the last thousand years. And, well, 2 in the last 10,000 years. But there have been 2 in the last 20 years, so that’s definitely something to worry about. There haven’t been any in the last 10 years though, so they seem to be on the decline, so maybe the time machine effect of Iran getting nukes in the future really is working for them! You might be onto something here!
There has been more than 2 tiger attacks in the last 10,000 years in the environs around my house though, so it’s something I really need to worry about. Happily my anti-tiger defenses are there to protect me and the rest of the neighborhood, though most of my neighbors don’t seem to appreciate my efforts to save their children and pets from the terrible tiger menace.
There have been three American invasions in the last 25 years - twice in Iraq, once in Afghanistan. And quite a number of military incursions, air strikes, drone strikes, etc., in Pakistan, Libya, the Yemen, etc.
How high may be the chance be of an American attack on Iran sometime during the next 25 years? Hard to say. Perhaps one percent, two percent, three - maybe ten at the most?
With Iranian nukes, though, that number would drop to something like 0.00001 percent. Which is nice I think, war being hell and all.
