DN Opinion. We must have nuclear weapons to deter Russia

Alfred Nobel was a scientist, engineer, dealer and fund promoter of the world's most esteemed academic awards and also the peace prize. He had a dream of creating weapons of mass destruction with the motive to ensure peace.

For many, this might seem to be pure madness, but is it? Or predicted the Nobel the future a century in advance?

the Cold war, so called because it was fought without the firepower. The reason was that both sides would destroy each other in an armed conflict because of the terrible destructiveness of nuclear weapons possess.

made in the very real war impossible, or at least to the suicide. Unlike in the past, it was no longer possible to win anything in that war.

In English, this is called reasoning for The theory of mutual assured destruction”. This is the main reason for peace in the modern era, rather than a more sensible and less hostile foreign policy.

Sweden got, however, never nuclear weapons. We certainly had a program from the late 40s to the early 70s, but it was shut down, primarily for political reasons. Among these were the Vietnam war, the hippie movement, the environmental commitment and the resistance against nuclear power.

The Swedish military is now weaker than ever. Despite the fact that the cold war is over and the Soviet union have fallen raises, in particular Russia, but also China, of increasing concern. Now is, however, an almost total support in parliament for a renovation.

there have been many attempts to illustrate the ability of the defence to lack of ability, for example, when the supreme COMMANDER Sverker Göranson in January 2013, said that ”Sweden can defend itself about a week” in an attack.

we talk about how Russia could roll tanks into northern sweden, rise of land on the coast and parachute down on the fields and that we would not have enough to set against. To me this sounds, however, these speculations something like this: ”We are without a chance against the snipers over there. Of course, we have to get the sword!”.

the Situation is much worse than it seems. Why should Russia not do the obvious?

According to my research, a Russian submarine which is under the surface on the Russian east coast, fire a missile that travels up in the atmosphere and, one hour later, it rains six nuclear bombs down over the Stockholm area, each one ten times more powerful than that in Hiroshima. Stockholm and its suburbs would be destroyed and I live in Uppsala would be forced to evacuate if the wind is south.

How many such missiles have this submarine? 16. A single submarine would be able to destroy the Swedish society and our defense would not be able to do other than to look at.

Russia give us the ultimatum to surrender or be destroyed? In ”On the crisis or the war will” claim the Authority for civil contingencies that we will never give up, but understand the authority the situation? The ultimatum has in fact been used once before, and with successful results.

The pride of Japan as cold-blooded and steadfastly waited for the invasion surrendered when the meaning of the allied threat of totalförstörelse cleared. Faced with the same threat would also surrender immediately.

There would be no war. We have, after all, no kamikaze-the divisions or the same level of pride that leads people to commit suicide to preserve their honor.

Why, then, should Russia be prepared to bomb us with the lead, but not with plutonium? Weapons of mass destruction have , Nobel predicted revolutionized the war. The modern war is fought with intelligence, not with flights, fleets, or infantry.

Nuclear weapons, however, is the premise. We would just have a submarine similar to the russians, we would be able to stand against a military superpower. It would not be able to touch us and we would not be able to touch it.

Whether Sweden has their own submarines or have allies that have them are of less importance. The important thing is to avskräckningsfaktorn. Such can be accomplished by a Nato-membership, but then the dissolution of the Swedish neutrality, and our defense will be dependent on the americans.

Unfortunately, Sweden has since long regarded nuclear weapons as in itself evil and been too drunk on his imagined moral superiority to remain objective in the matter. The active for a nuclear free world has not understood the role of the nuclear age.

allows for world domination. Violence is power, and nuclear weapons are the ultimate violence. The united states, Russia and China will never give up this power.

With all due respect is the united nations convention on a kärnvapenförbud of the same paper that Neville Chamberlain came proudly viftandes with signed by Adolf Hitler. You might as well ban war itself. The last massförstörelsevapnet will be destroyed in the context of humanity's destruction, whether it detonated or not.

Kärnvapeninnehav shall be based on the enforcement of peace and it is not justifiable to have more than necessary. I have heard that the united states and Russia can blow up the world hundreds of times over. Once is obviously too much.

Sweden's naive and pacifist approach to the issue is unfortunate. The who knows his history will know that pacifists allow war, not the other way around. Fortunately, however, constitute support for the membership of Nato a camouflaged support for my position, even if the honesty would have been preferable.

meaningless to provide defense resources to expand their divisions and battalions, and believe that it will even delay a occupation. A avskräckningsfaktor in the form of nuclear weapons is the only thing that works. The defence in general do not need to cope with much more than guard the borders, eliminate minor threats and assist in conflict zones.

the Security policies should shift focus and acknowledge that a defence without nuclear weapons is just a paper tiger. The only way for Sweden to have a defense with real capabilities, are to either re-establish a nuclear weapons programme or become a member of an international defence cooperation, reasonably the Nato.

I will leave the task to determine which option is most appropriate to the more knowledgeable in the field.