Both Sweden and Finland will not rule out hosting NATO nuclear weapons or permanent bases if they join the military alliance, the prime ministers of each nation have said.
Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin and her Swedish counterpart, Ulf Kristersson, made the comments during a joint press conference in Helsinki on Tuesday.
When asked if Finland would allow nuclear weapons, Marin said she didn’t want to “close any doors” and that there should not be “any preconditions” to Finland joining NATO.
Kristersson said that Sweden and Finland will “act jointly” on the issue of nuclear weapons as the two nations have sought NATO membership together. He said the Nordic countries should “embrace” all of NATO’s capabilities.
Separately on Tuesday, Micael Byden, the commander of Sweden’s armed forces, said Stockholm shouldn’t set any preconditions before joining NATO. “To draw red lines even before we’re becoming a member only creates obstacles and frictions,” he said.
Currently, NATO has no nuclear weapons deployed in any countries that have joined the alliance since the end of the Cold War, and it’s unlikely they would be placed in Sweden or Finland in the near future. But the policy could always change, and Poland has said it’s looking to host US nukes and has had discussions with Washington about the issue.
Placing nuclear weapons in Finland would be a major provocation toward Moscow as it shares an over 800-mile border with Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said he doesn’t view Finland and Sweden joining NATO as a threat but warned he would respond to the expansion of the military alliance’s infrastructure in the region.
Sweden and Finland’s NATO bids have been approved by 28 out of 30 members, with only Hungary and Turkey holding out. Turkish officials are warning they won’t approve their NATO memberships unless they fulfill a deal signed back in June.
I’m sure I’ll be accused of ageism (again), but the governments of Sweden and Finland are comprised of people too young to remember the acute fear and actual deadly menace nuclear weapons represent. I believe the world is a LARP for these people — who hold actual power in their hands.
Finland and Sweden are very interested in not having their membership of NATO delayed over preconditions they put on them joining – so for natural reasons they have opted not to make any such preconditions. They very likely rely upon the fact that NATO has not stationed nukes in any of the members that have joined since the end of the cold war:
The main reason that NATO has not done so is that putting nukes with shorter flight time vastly increases the likelihood of nuclear war by accident – which NATO is not interested in.
This reasoning is or was also used to explain/justify why the US was not developing hypersonic missile capabilities – this is not altruism, they have enough conventional weapons to retaliate even should a substantial number be intercepted – the Russian ‘need’ to develop hypersonic missiles has been a bit of a conundrum seen from the US as the Russians have been able to place nukes within less than 100 km from Washington, London, Paris and Brussels since the 1960’ties.
“This reasoning is or was also used to explain/justify why the US was not developing hypersonic missile capabilities-”
“Is or was…not”? Uh, definitely “was” not – it’s happenin’.
Hypersonic missiles to “increas[e] interoperability with allies”? Huh, wonder how Russia will react to that? Oh, right, they’re doing it already – we’re only doin’ it ’cause now we have to – Don’t you understand? We have to! – Great god, man, we just have to! – to “stay ahead of strategic competitors”!
“Air Force announces hypersonic missile contract award”
Sept. 22, 2022
Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
“The Air Force awarded Raytheon Missiles and Defense a $985,348,124 contract to develop and demonstrate Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile prototypes, underscoring the U.S. Air Force’s focus on increasing interoperability with allies and partners to stay ahead of strategic competitors.
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3167976/air-force-announces-hypersonic-missile-contract-award/
That is exactly why I used the is or was formulation i.e. hinting that it very likely no longer works that way.
Naturally once the ‘opposition’ has been spotted using this kind of weapons then the US can no longer ‘live’ without them.
They are IMO a bad and unwanted addition to the NATO weapons inventory – but then I’m not a military man.
“Naturally once the ‘opposition’ has been spotted using this kind of weapons then the US can no longer ‘live’ without them.”
“Naturally”? Eh…you’re characterizing the logic of escalation, not half-way acceding to it…………..right?
“They are IMO a bad and unwanted addition to the NATO weapons inventory – but then I’m not a military man.”
“In [your] opinion”? “[B]ut then” little old you are “not a military man”?
Duuuuude…
…Do ya’ have to be so freakin’ deferential?
…I mean, christ a’mighty, yer a citizen in yr own country, with speech and voting rights, including on US foreign policy.
Unless – now – only genuine expert “military men”…
…and the war-mad Twitter hysterics smearing any call for “negotiation” as “pro-Putin” to shut up anti war voices…
…unless only they now get to weigh in or decide on diplomacy vs escalation.
???
“???”
Oh, please, yr not that dumb.
There is as I see it no escalation – could you explain how the US deciding to provide money to develop a system the Russians and the Chinese already have is escalation – a potential arms race sure, but escalation? Escalation of what?
I merely acknowledge that there might be scenarios that I have not even contemplated – as it stands having weapons that when launched regardless of their actual payload risk starting a nuclear war much faster than any other weapons in the current inventory would seem like a bad idea – as their main purpose is to be harder to stop and they are so very expensive they are currently not a great value for money if measured by expected nukes on target.
This is a non-sequitur – I do not have the slightest clue why you would put this in your comment.
Who is the they and again what does this have to do with any of what I have written and you supposedly are answering to?
Yea giving a contract to Raytheon on Sept 22 of 22 to “to develop and demonstrate Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile prototypes, with allies and partners to stay ahead of strategic competitors to develop and demonstrate Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile prototypes,
Perhaps someone could explain how giving a contract on Sept 22 of 2022 ” To develop and demonstrate weapons systems which the “strategic competitors” have currently deployed and used in attacks on our ” allies and partners” constitute “to stay ahead of strategic competitors.” Perhaps “trying to catch up” would better characterize the relative positions of the strategic competitors.” when one of them begins a project that the other strategic competitors.” have deployed and used in combat. It sounds like propaganda raised to heights never before imagined!!!!!!!?????
Sweden and Finland???…… Hosting nuclear weapons???…… Now I’ve seen everything…. Forgive me for sounding foolish but, it makes me wonder if there is another World War in our future?………………………………………………………………….
They are not going to host these weapons because NATO is not going to ask them to do so – as it serves no purpose for NATO quite the contrary – as the article also states NATO has not put nukes in any of its new members since the cold war.
Sounds good to me. thanks-
So they become window dressing members, more a burden than an asset…????? A very dangerous game to play, & hoping things won’t go sideways. Totally Insane….!!!!!
Neither Finland nor Sweden are window dressing in NATO – Finland has the largest highly trained reserve and best fighting force – and Finland represents a major geographical advantage. Sweden is a major arms producer and has some of the best equipment in Europe.
Seeing as Putin himself have said that them joining is not a problem and denuded the western front of trained soldiers there is very little to suggest that Finland and Sweden joining will make things go sideways – especially as neither Finland nor Sweden will be asked to host nukes – as per post 1991 NATO de-facto policy.
“Both Sweden and Finland Won’t Rule Out Hosting NATO Nuclear Weapons The two Nordic nations say they won’t set ‘preconditions’ for their NATO memberships”
Perhaps ask the citizens of Sweden and Finland if they want to be targets for a Russian reprisal for attacks by NATO!
If world war 3 started any NATO nuke base would be targeted for elimination by nukes.
They did ask the citizens – their answer was that they wanted to join NATO.
They asked their citizens for joining Not hosting nuclear weapons…!
Joining NATO does mean that you could end up hosting nukes – what you are talking about is negotiating a deal to join NATO with reservations. As it happens they will like the rest of the new NATO members not be asked to host nukes – for the simple reason that most NATO countries do not want such a senseless provocation of Russia – because they actually are in NATO to enjoy security and peace.
They asked their citizens about NATO membership (that includes the potential of having nukes stationed) I’m very sure that neither the Finns nor the Swedes are as slow in the uptake as you appear to be – NATO membership comes with that provision – but as already explained there is very little chance that nukes would ever be stationed in Finland or Sweden.
So plainly put they preferred not to risk delay membership, to negotiate an exception to a potential that has very little risk of ever becoming an actual.
Fact citizens of Sweden and Finland did not approve NATO or basing nukes in those countries.:
April 28, 20226:56 AM PDTLast Updated 6 months ago
Swedish PM rejects referendum on possible NATO membership
and
Finnish president says NATO referendum no longer necessary
By Pekka Vanttinen | EURACTIV
Mar 31, 2022
So you have followed none of the public debate! Yes both Sweden and Finland were against NATO membership Putin’s attack on Ukraine changed that and in Sweden they just had national elections so if the people were against NATO membership (which includes the potential stationing of nukes) then they were free to vote for parties that opposed NATO membership – they did not.
In Finland they did not have an election this year, but the support for the their PM has not dropped – and they have reliable and frequent measurements of the public attitude – in short there is nothing to suggest that neither the Swedish nor the Finish population were anxious to have their leaders delay membership to negotiate an exception to the potential stationing of nukes – probably because they know that no exception is needed.
So how many citizens of both Sweden and Finland signed up to host nuke weapons and turn their countries into ground zero in any future conflicts. Inquiring minds want to know?
A significant majority wanted NATO membership (the idea that this will involve the outcome you describe) being rejected (or more correctly simply not given any credibility) by them.
You have to get used to the idea (like I am) that not everyone thinks like you – i.e. that:
1) Sweden or Finland counter to NATO policy since 1991 will be asked to host nukes
2) hosting NATO nukes (even should this have to happen) necessarily will lead to nuclear war
3) Sweden or Finland could not opt to leave NATO if they were asked to host nukes against their wish.
The sheep are so easy to lead to slaughter, how sad for them and their families.
—–FIVE QUESTIONS THAT MUST BE ANSWERED—
1. How Stoltenbeurg got authority to refuse negotiation?
2. Does Stoltenburg have authority to declare war?
3. If war started and Russia nuked NATO capitols, can members cancel membership to avoid being nuked?
4. As NATO has no defense against hypersonics, how do they plan to protect their non-nuclear members from having their capitols nuked?
5, How many NATO capitols have nuke proof shelter for all their citizens???
Answer: do you know that he has refused negotiations – because nothing I know suggests this to be the case.
No
Yes any treaty can always be broken – not that I think any would do so.
The protection against having capitals nuked was and is the same whether by ICBM’s or hypersonic missiles (there is little defense against either) i.e. retaliatory strikes.
I believe that Stockholm and Helsinki are among the best protected
Separately on Tuesday, Micael Byden, the commander of Sweden’s armed forces, said Stockholm shouldn’t set any preconditions before joining NATO. “To draw red lines even before we’re becoming a member only creates obstacles and frictions,” he said.
Yes, that’s the main thing. Don’t want to cause “obstacles and frictions”. At least not with NATO. Idiot.
If the US does not expect Putin to respond to a major threat of more Nukes closer to his homeland they are making a major mistake. The US foreign policy reminds me of a bully in the schoolyard. Even a so called 100 lb 6th grader will fight if pushed far enough. The US is far past thgat point. It might be time to duck and cover. I am pretty sure that Russia has Nuclear submarines in the North Atlantic. How stupid is the US foreign policy. It boggles the mind.
“When asked if Finland would allow nuclear weapons, Marin said she didn’t want to “close any doors” and that…”
…she actually thought it would be ‘kind of sexy – you know, those bad-boy nukes facing off across 8000 miles of Russo-Finn border, like in a Tom Cruise movie.’
One little problem, that Russia may act to prevent the stupid woman from her Tom Cruise fantasy by using one of their super 200 megaton nukes to prevent any such deployment by taking out their coast.