What a well researched channel, bravo. Even the photos match pretty much exactly, no glaring errors, though some small points are debatable. Keep up the good work, you have a new subscriber!
Thanks for that! Yes, there are many things in history that are documentable but also involve opinion. There is so little published about the Swedish Bomb that I decided to undertake a rather extensive project on this. The bulk of the information is from Swedish government sources, mostly from filings with the IAEA. Often, they write something that is quite important, but with a dry tone that tends to lead one into not thinking too deeply on the topic. The rest is a logical rendering of the story into the context of the times, which is also something that has never been done -- connecting the dots, so to speak.
@@HistoricWings Manhattan project involved something like 130 000 people but you said with the 300 scientists the Swedish project rivaled the American one in scale.
Excellent video, with measured and well-researched yet surprising content. And thank you for applying a deliberate, enunciated pacing to your narration. Too many UA-cam videos are shrill and shouty! I’ll be awaiting the sequel with interest!
Thank you for your comment! I am working steadily on improving with each video -- the narration is the key area where I'll be focusing, probably for months to come, if not for years. I am glad you liked it! Part 2 is coming soon.
@@HistoricWings Ditto. Your voiceover is about as good as it gets. The right colour and intonation and a listening pleasure. For me YT channels live or die on their voice presentation. If you are interested in speech and accent Dr Geoff Lindsey has an excellent channel.
1 nit-pick, Flygvapnet was in the mid 50s somewhere around place 4 or 5 in it's size (available air craft/pilot/mechanics etc.) The only larger ones was the soviet ones, USAF, RAF and armée de lÁir That power was basically to able to tell anyone who want's to operate in the balitc: your movement here is only if WE allow it.
Yes, & one should also keep in mind that a considerable part of those larger air forces consisted of old WWII, while the Swedish airforce mostly was made up of "modern" jet fighters... The outcome of the Swedish deployment to Kongo probably was noticed in headquarters both in the east & in the west at the time aswell.. 🤔🧐
Great story with solid research. I can hardly wait for part two. What a great channel. Hopefully the subscription rate will shoot up after these videos.
Yes, it is underground, in every sense of the word. These two videos were deeply and extensively researched. The compilation of information is unique in its depth and accuracy. The most amazing thing, however, is not that it happened, but that so few people know about it. And, no doubt, it will soon be happening again.
I was in there in the early 1990s before it was officially reopened, some sneaky urban exploration. I remember the control room was full of mold (we did _not_ open a door or try to enter that). There were still cubicles along the wall inside the reactor hall where the scientists would have been sitting. I suppose the water in the pool was considered enough shielding.
Qudos for pronouncing "KTH" "kooh-teehh-hoee"! "FOA" is just "fooahhh". No initial "eff". Having an experimental Breeder reactor smack middle in the centre of Stockholm was just crazy!
I'm not 100 % sure but I think you exaggerate the role of the R1 reactor in the Swedish nuclear weapons program. As far as I've read, the burn out rate of the fuel in R1 was too high to make weapon's grade plutonium. It produced plutonium for sure but I don't think it was usable in a nuclear bomb. The fuel from R3 in Ågesta on the other hand would have been more suitable for that.
Yes, the process was developed there and then improved generations of reactors were designed and built to produce the necessary volume of plutonium. I hadn't realized that I didn't make the entirely clear. Thanks for pointing it out.
IIRC Ågesta (R3) was the operational breeder reactor for what little plutonium was obtained. Marviken (R4) was intended to be the main production facility, but proved to be a flawed design with runaway complexity.
I can see how you would interpret that as there is a double-meaning -- I meant small compared to countries like Russia, Canada, the United States, etc. By good coincidence, I know a little bit about Sweden as I live here.
@@mnp3713 Due to it's "ownership" of the Autonomous island of Greenland. It's more or less a self governing nation by all means almost but within the realm of the Danish kingdom. Much like the UK and it's commonwealth. (Commonwealth nations are mostly independent these days ik this pls don't point it out.)
@@benjamin6813 The definition of a country is not well defined. Greenland do not have its own constitution, do not have any powers in foreign politics and have no military. They do have a seat in the danish Parliament and for that reason i would argue its not a country as - denmark is the country and have the full sovereignty over greenlands external affares
The Russians have long memories and Sweden and Russia have had hundreds of years of conflict -- the Russians are notoriously unforgiving anyway, but the Swedes know deep down that they will be shown no mercy if a war breaks out.
Hade ryssarna behov av Sverige så hade vi varit ryssar för länge sedan! Men nu väcker vi den ryska björnen, med flygningar över Rysk mark, vapen gratis till Ukraina o Nato... Dags o vakna???
Kom igen DAvid varför har du ett sådant hat. Fan jag har inte det trots att jag har mer skäl än du någonsin kan komma på. David, hur mycket måste du googla innan du svarar; hoppas du minskar tiden radikalt!
6:40 The primary post war bomber would not be the Saab 17 but the twin engine Saab 18; more in line with the B-25 or the Ju-88 and developed during the war.
Thank you for this comment -- that is also true, the Saab 18 is another older design that dated from the Second World War. it featuring twin reciprocating engines (propeller-driven) and had a typical high cruise speed of only 300 knots. It remained in service until the 1950s. The overall point is that Sweden did not have a frontline bomber capable of penetrating Soviet air defense. That point remains valid. More details on the outdated Saab 18: It could carry up to 1,400 kg of mixed bombs and rockets. The actual maximum load on the two center-mounted hard points was just 600 kg (at maximum load, it carried two 600 kg bombs, then the rest of the load was in wing-mounted rockets), which fell short of the 800 kg projected requirement for the Bomb. Bottom line -- it couldn't carry the bomb that was being developed either and, even if it could be modified to do so, would have been an easy target for Soviet jets.
And I so appreciate the knowledge that you bring to the discussion; contributions from well-informed subscribers are absolutely wonderful! Keep it coming! Thank you!
1:51 "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum", If I recall correctly, the man who pulled the trigger on India's nuke was a pacifist who found nuclear weapons reprehensible but he was a real politician and understood that in a world with nuclear weapons, it is the only way for a nation to be completely sovereign.
Both Pakistan and India developed nuclear weapons to ensure that they had parity. What resulted was not more war, but less. Neither country will invade the other because if they did, it would trigger a nuclear exchange. It is an interesting thing about nuclear weapons, despite their horrific nature (and maybe because of it), their result has not been to start more wars, but rather less.
Thank you very much! Production is well on its way -- a lot of research has gone into this and Part 2 has advanced very far along. I will publish it very soon.
Most likely, yes. And certainly now. Even before the formal accession of Sweden into NATO, the organization has extended the defensive umbrella to include the country in the alliance.
Thank you -- yes, concur on both points. The subtitle spellings were also correctly spelling his name. It is likely that my American pronunciation is off, however.
@@HistoricWings Why would carrying a nuke externally be a thermal problem ? Obviously, it reduces range. But so does flying around Mach 2 - and going that fast with bulky external stores is doubtful. US tactical nukes have been, and are carried externally to this day on the F-16 and on the F-104 before that. They don't cook-off.
I fully believe that Sweden never ended the program, and has developed their own nukes ever since, only keeping it above top secret and a matter of national security.
Some informal comments that I came across indicated that Sweden covertly informed the Soviets that it had nuclear weapons, which gave the Russians pause in their plans to invade during the Cold War. The key to Sweden's nuclear capability is that it is just that -- a real capability, even to this day. Whether it has nuclear weapons or not is immaterial, it could rapidly develop them and has the knowledge and capacity to do so.
Thanks! These two videos required almost a month of in depth research, double checking facts, and validating all of the findings. It is timely to share the actual picture of what Sweden did -- and can (and probably is going to soon) do again.
Thanks for mentioning that -- yes, I did leave that out of the video. Thanks for pointing it out! Nonetheless, it would have been too slow to "get the job done".
Sweden's defense industry was one of the best in Europe for many decades. With the new defense budget being increased to 2.6% of GDP, we can expect that the defense industry will start to expand again.
To qualify as "the 4th largest nuclear power" Sweden would have had to have hundreds of nukes, those 6 nukes mentioned would literally put it at the bottom of the list and on par with South Africa, who also had about 5-10 nukes but kept them disassembled and later completely did away with them.
Yes, I agree -- though it was that "on paper", with the potential number of bombs that could be assembled on short notice quickly at one point in the timeline.
Had Sweden become the fourth nuclear power, it would have by definition been - at least - the one with the 4th largest arsenal too. Even if it had one bomb.
Most Swedes don't even know the details of this -- or that Olof Palme was essentially the "Father of the Sweden Bomb". That puts a whole new spin on his as yet unsolved murder.
So, before there was any authorisation to do any such thing - certain people took it upon themselves to make the bomb... What is wrong with this picture ?
You could say that a lot was wrong with the picture, though secret military projects are undertaken all the time without public knowledge or consent. When it is a nuclear bomb, the matter becomes more important for public approval.
I believe the surströming warhead has been outlawed under the Geneva Conventions, though some Ukrainian drone teams rigged up one to drop from a drone on a Russian bunker. It worked. The Russians abandoned the position. Not making this up.
Tiny may be an overstatement, but the meaning is that Sweden is not a large country -- it has a population of around 10 million at this time. In terms of land area, it is only slightly bigger than the state of California.
@@tordj2508 ;D Den stavningen ser ut som skånska alternativt en asiatisk kampsport. En engelsman tex borde väl säga Kei tee heitsch. No offense till vieoskaparen - mycket bra video och engelska!
For a country that has a population that is about 2.5% of the USA -- ON A PER CAPITA BASIS -- the project was Sweden's equivalent of the Manhattan Project. That is really a better way to have said it. Thank you for pointing that out.
90 seconds in the hyperbole and silliness starts. 'rivelled the Manhattan project in scale' - no it didn't. NOTHING Sweden could ever do would rival that project - go and look at the size and cost, it's all on Wikipedia.
On a per capita basis, it was a massive project. It was Sweden's equivalent of the Manhattan Project, that is what was meant. Thank you for pointing this out.
That's true. Strangely, you say that the number might be 4 bombs. That is the number of atomic bombs (tactical nuclear weapons based on plutonium cores) that is periodically mentioned in informal circles -- with no proof ever offered.
I'm not sure I understand the comment, though I will add that Sweden considered restarting its nuclear weapons program, but the cost was very daunting and the timeline was long -- at least a decade of work would be required. An easier path forward (and one with less controversy) was to join NATO, which would place Sweden under the combined NATO nuclear umbrella, thus eliminating any need for Sweden to have its own retaliatory response.
@@HistoricWings according to Wilhelm Agrell, Sweden ended up under USA's nuclear umbrella anyway, as Washington wasn't too keen on nuclear proliferation in Europe among countries not part of NATO or WP, as that was seen as a risk for nuclear war unrelated to NATO spreading into NATO territory and thus triggering a major war. It should also be noted that the Atomic bomber preceded 37 Viggen, though the latter drew experience from the former.
"Sweden a tiny country in scandinavia" Did you smoke weed while writing the script, or did you completely ignore to look at a world map? Scandinavia is composed of 3 countries. Sweden, Norway Danemark. And of those Sweden is the largest. the smallest one is Danemark, the second largest is Norway. And even outside of scandinavia Sweden is by no means a "Tiny" country.
A better phrasing would have been Sweden is in Scandinavia; compared to countries like the USA, it is tiny. Thank you for your message! One should always remember that these videos are just spoken word, though after extensive research. If I were writing for a book, that sort of thing would have been caught in the editing process.
I think that there are many ways to end a tyranny short of resorting to nuclear weapons, but having nuclear weapons does tend to give tyrants pause in their genocidal plans.
I dont like it you are filling the video with a range of common aircraft that has nothing to do with nuclear delivery If your nuclear program has not progressed far enough towards miniturize the warhead so fighter can carry it you really need an ICMB to get one over to enemy territory if you do not have ICMBs you need a really good bomber and sweden had not mastered making the nuke miniature so it could be carried by fighters they definitely had no bomber they definitely had no ICBMs they simply had no carrier and the scale that sweden went about it would probably only yielded one single digit of bombs so they sobered up and got peece loving anyways this is in the wake of WWII FRESH in everyones mind. it might have affected their mind why they were even begining to try make one. the era 50s 60s the nuclear scientists were crazy, they proposed putting nuclear plants everywhere. What do you think ? How about a nuclear plant in your city right in your neighbourhood fueling you with cheap electricity. is it not fantastic to have one so close?
Thanks for the comments -- however, the characterization that I am "filling the video with a range of common aircraft that has nothing to do with nuclear delivery" is incorrect. In fact, Sweden worked hard to develop delivery systems and these very aircraft were part of that -- on this, the record is absolutely clear. For instance, the Saab 32 Lansen was specifically designed to carry the SAAB "Robot-Byrån (RB) 04", or RB-04. While you may conclude that the RB-04 never carried nuclear warheads, you are probably unaware that it was initially designed specifically as an air-launched delivery system for tactical nuclear weapons. Concurrently, Sweden was working on its own variant of US Army nuclear artillery shells, which were designed to fit on the missile. That miniaturization work was not as successful as hoped, however. Ultimately, the RB-04 never carried a nuclear weapon as a result. If you watch the second video in this series, you will see more about Sweden's efforts to develop a delivery system. Ultimately, it wasn't until the early 1970s when Sweden finally had a delivery system in place, but at that time the bomb program was wound down and ultimately put on hold.
@@HistoricWings maybe but you have to test that weapon to know you built it right. where are you going to do that? and what yields are we talking about here? and what could possibly be a suitable target? Leningrad? All other nations tested their designs. I doubt sweden could skip several steps, succeding with minaturization in one go, and have a working bomb without testing.
BTW sweden is 3000 kilometers long so and a landing from sea is risky so sweden assumed the russians take the north route UNLESS the soviet marine forces in the baltic had nothing better to do then they might try a marine landing. the geography makes it absolute necessary to increase every fighters combat range if they going to be able to help out up north. and accedentally it also means leningrad is in range.
sweden idientified some possible landing areas. when sweden conscript army was the biggest we had like 4 armored brigades and then possibly 1/2 one also. The armored brigade I was in was going to mobilize around town Skövde and then move to a for the enemy >great< landing site called "Vikbolandet". Our brigade was the one on the move. Was another one in "Skåne" but it was pretty much fixed in position cause of great landing oppurtunities there. I am old now so I am not able to account for what the remaining 2 armored brigades was supposed to do or where they were.
Yes, it is interesting that they took a public vote. Democracy is a messy system, but the best kind of government anyway -- yet for matters of national security, the popular view, if not fully educated and aware of all of the classified matters at hand, is not always the most secure or sensible.
We did do some practical nuke simulations in the field with conventional explosives. That is a rather different thing. No nukes has be detonated on any purpose related to Sweden or Swedens nuclear weapon program. So, I you still insisted - give us the proof thereof.
@@pernykvist3442 The lake Foajaure yes but that was created by exploding a massive amount of conventional explosives to study the blast effects. It was not a nuclear bomb.
There are not so much 'Sweden' left to defend. In a decade or so the majority of the people here will be other nationalities with different loyalties. Swedes voted for this development...
Att gå med i NATO innebär bara att sätta plåster på den vidöppna halspulsåder som är sveriges militär idag... Militära allianser av den här skalan är sällan effektiva, eller ens nödvändiga. Om ett fullskaligt krig skulle utbryta finns det ingen chans för nato att försvara samtliga gränser mot deras fiender, men ockuperade områden ska säkert bombas till småbitar, såsom britterna gjorde, när de "räddade" danmark från nazisterna. Om nu landet har fallit i fiendens händer, vilket man räknar med i branschen - så att säga - ja, vad gör det då för skillnad om vi är med i NATO eller inte? Striden mot fienden fortsätter i det ockuperade området, som om inget har hänt, för det faktum att det är ockuperat innebär just att vi inte är änderas fränder: Alltså har vi en gemensam fiende. Gemensamma fiender har alltid trumfat allianser, när allt kommer omkring. Särskilt om man kollar på historien. Något som man ofta gör i militären, vad jag förstår. Nä, att gå med i NATO ser jag bara nackdelar med. Att begränsa möjligheter för traditionell diplomati - sådan där som amerikanarna inte verkar förstå sig på. Det kanske är europeisk tradition, vad vet jag? Men ska man begå massmord här, då ska man iallafall ha casus belli, och ALLTID lämna dörren öppen för förhandling. Att gå med i NATO och låta amerikanarna ställa ryssland inför ett ultimatum låter som en jävligt dålig ide, och det tror jag att de som tar beslutetet är väl medvetna om. Tyvvär styrs dessa förhoppningsvis rationella yrkesmän av ytterligare en högre auktoritet; jubelidioterna vi kallar politiker, som bara är intresserade av valfläsk. Hurra för sverige! ...och rösta blankt, är du snäll ;)
Yes, by American terms. Sweden has a population that is 1/35th the size of the US and with a landmass that is just slightly bigger than the US state of California.
What a well researched channel, bravo. Even the photos match pretty much exactly, no glaring errors, though some small points are debatable. Keep up the good work, you have a new subscriber!
Thanks for that! Yes, there are many things in history that are documentable but also involve opinion. There is so little published about the Swedish Bomb that I decided to undertake a rather extensive project on this.
The bulk of the information is from Swedish government sources, mostly from filings with the IAEA. Often, they write something that is quite important, but with a dry tone that tends to lead one into not thinking too deeply on the topic. The rest is a logical rendering of the story into the context of the times, which is also something that has never been done -- connecting the dots, so to speak.
@@HistoricWings Manhattan project involved something like 130 000 people but you said with the 300 scientists the Swedish project rivaled the American one in scale.
Excellent video, with measured and well-researched yet surprising content.
And thank you for applying a deliberate, enunciated pacing to your narration. Too many UA-cam videos are shrill and shouty!
I’ll be awaiting the sequel with interest!
Thank you for your comment! I am working steadily on improving with each video -- the narration is the key area where I'll be focusing, probably for months to come, if not for years. I am glad you liked it! Part 2 is coming soon.
@@HistoricWings Ditto. Your voiceover is about as good as it gets. The right colour and intonation and a listening pleasure. For me YT channels live or die on their voice presentation. If you are interested in speech and accent Dr Geoff Lindsey has an excellent channel.
TINY SWEDEN IS HUGE
One of the strongest military powers in the 1970s and 1980s; since then, the country has enjoyed the "peace dividend".
1 nit-pick, Flygvapnet was in the mid 50s somewhere around place 4 or 5 in it's size (available air craft/pilot/mechanics etc.) The only larger ones was the soviet ones, USAF, RAF and armée de lÁir
That power was basically to able to tell anyone who want's to operate in the balitc: your movement here is only if WE allow it.
Thank you!
Yes, & one should also keep in mind that a considerable part of those larger air forces consisted of old WWII, while the Swedish airforce mostly was made up of "modern" jet fighters... The outcome of the Swedish deployment to Kongo probably was noticed in headquarters both in the east & in the west at the time aswell.. 🤔🧐
Great story with solid research. I can hardly wait for part two. What a great channel. Hopefully the subscription rate will shoot up after these videos.
Thank you! Working hard on Part 2 right now!
Damn, I have been down in that nuclear reacton for a theater play, had no idea there was history with a nuclear bomb there.
Yes, it is underground, in every sense of the word. These two videos were deeply and extensively researched. The compilation of information is unique in its depth and accuracy. The most amazing thing, however, is not that it happened, but that so few people know about it.
And, no doubt, it will soon be happening again.
What is the name of this underground venue?
@@frida507 Its called "Reaktorhallen R1, KTH." I think, we saw Kafkas Arkiv, highly recomment if they still play. Saw it this winter.
@@applepipe Thanks! I will check it out.
I was in there in the early 1990s before it was officially reopened, some sneaky urban exploration. I remember the control room was full of mold (we did _not_ open a door or try to enter that). There were still cubicles along the wall inside the reactor hall where the scientists would have been sitting. I suppose the water in the pool was considered enough shielding.
Qudos for pronouncing "KTH" "kooh-teehh-hoee"!
"FOA" is just "fooahhh". No initial "eff".
Having an experimental Breeder reactor smack middle in the centre of Stockholm was just crazy!
Thank you! Yes, I worked on the pronunciations and did the best I could with proper Swedish language phrasing.
I'm not 100 % sure but I think you exaggerate the role of the R1 reactor in the Swedish nuclear weapons program. As far as I've read, the burn out rate of the fuel in R1 was too high to make weapon's grade plutonium. It produced plutonium for sure but I don't think it was usable in a nuclear bomb. The fuel from R3 in Ågesta on the other hand would have been more suitable for that.
Yes, the process was developed there and then improved generations of reactors were designed and built to produce the necessary volume of plutonium. I hadn't realized that I didn't make the entirely clear. Thanks for pointing it out.
IIRC Ågesta (R3) was the operational breeder reactor for what little plutonium was obtained. Marviken (R4) was intended to be the main production facility, but proved to be a flawed design with runaway complexity.
Sweden is not a tiny country in Scandinavia, it is the biggest.
I can see how you would interpret that as there is a double-meaning -- I meant small compared to countries like Russia, Canada, the United States, etc. By good coincidence, I know a little bit about Sweden as I live here.
It depends - the Danish Kingdom is around 4 times bigger than the Swedish kingdom
@@mnp3713 Due to it's "ownership" of the Autonomous island of Greenland. It's more or less a self governing nation by all means almost but within the realm of the Danish kingdom. Much like the UK and it's commonwealth. (Commonwealth nations are mostly independent these days ik this pls don't point it out.)
@@benjamin6813 The definition of a country is not well defined. Greenland do not have its own constitution, do not have any powers in foreign politics and have no military. They do have a seat in the danish Parliament and for that reason i would argue its not a country as - denmark is the country and have the full sovereignty over greenlands external affares
@@benjamin6813 actually the situation is very similar to the US - Alaska relationship - would any one call alaska a country
Russians are not like Germans who Will spare Sweden for its neutral position. In this case it's the opposite.
The Russians have long memories and Sweden and Russia have had hundreds of years of conflict -- the Russians are notoriously unforgiving anyway, but the Swedes know deep down that they will be shown no mercy if a war breaks out.
Hade ryssarna behov av Sverige så hade vi varit ryssar för länge sedan! Men nu väcker vi den ryska björnen, med flygningar över Rysk mark, vapen gratis till Ukraina o Nato... Dags o vakna???
Kom igen DAvid varför har du ett sådant hat. Fan jag har inte det trots att jag har mer skäl än du någonsin kan komma på. David, hur mycket måste du googla innan du svarar; hoppas du minskar tiden radikalt!
@@HistoricWings most is Swedens own actions but i you don care to find out, easy going boy!
Sweden is only neutral on paper, and Russia knows that. Germany spared sweden for other reasons.
Sweden would have been a lot cooler if they did
I'm not sure whether Sweden would have "cooler" or not, but it is a really great country to live in.
6:40 The primary post war bomber would not be the Saab 17 but the twin engine Saab 18; more in line with the B-25 or the Ju-88 and developed during the war.
Thank you for this comment -- that is also true, the Saab 18 is another older design that dated from the Second World War. it featuring twin reciprocating engines (propeller-driven) and had a typical high cruise speed of only 300 knots. It remained in service until the 1950s. The overall point is that Sweden did not have a frontline bomber capable of penetrating Soviet air defense. That point remains valid.
More details on the outdated Saab 18: It could carry up to 1,400 kg of mixed bombs and rockets. The actual maximum load on the two center-mounted hard points was just 600 kg (at maximum load, it carried two 600 kg bombs, then the rest of the load was in wing-mounted rockets), which fell short of the 800 kg projected requirement for the Bomb.
Bottom line -- it couldn't carry the bomb that was being developed either and, even if it could be modified to do so, would have been an easy target for Soviet jets.
And I so appreciate the knowledge that you bring to the discussion; contributions from well-informed subscribers are absolutely wonderful! Keep it coming! Thank you!
1:51 "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum", If I recall correctly, the man who pulled the trigger on India's nuke was a pacifist who found nuclear weapons reprehensible but he was a real politician and understood that in a world with nuclear weapons, it is the only way for a nation to be completely sovereign.
Both Pakistan and India developed nuclear weapons to ensure that they had parity. What resulted was not more war, but less. Neither country will invade the other because if they did, it would trigger a nuclear exchange. It is an interesting thing about nuclear weapons, despite their horrific nature (and maybe because of it), their result has not been to start more wars, but rather less.
Excellent work. Best wishes. Looking forward to your next.
Thank you very much! Production is well on its way -- a lot of research has gone into this and Part 2 has advanced very far along. I will publish it very soon.
"If you want peace, you prepare for war" (Si vis pacem, para bellum)
If you want war make yourself weak.
Proud to be a KTH graduate!
I imagine you visited the underground area a few times!
@@HistoricWings yes l did. I would visit it again too. Sweden should have never abandoned it's nuclear weapons program.
We should have gone through with this, but it was most likely replaced with some agreement with the US..
Most likely, yes. And certainly now. Even before the formal accession of Sweden into NATO, the organization has extended the defensive umbrella to include the country in the alliance.
Tage Erlander was PM until 1969 and his successor was Olof (not Olaf) Palme.
Thank you -- yes, concur on both points. The subtitle spellings were also correctly spelling his name. It is likely that my American pronunciation is off, however.
@@HistoricWings Why would carrying a nuke externally be a thermal problem ?
Obviously, it reduces range.
But so does flying around Mach 2 - and going that fast with bulky external stores is doubtful.
US tactical nukes have been, and are carried externally to this day on the F-16 and on the F-104 before that.
They don't cook-off.
I fully believe that Sweden never ended the program, and has developed their own nukes ever since, only keeping it above top secret and a matter of national security.
Well we have the esrange sattelite launching site so fuck around and find out hehe
Why? The whole point of nuclear weapons is that your enemies know so they don't invade.
Some informal comments that I came across indicated that Sweden covertly informed the Soviets that it had nuclear weapons, which gave the Russians pause in their plans to invade during the Cold War. The key to Sweden's nuclear capability is that it is just that -- a real capability, even to this day. Whether it has nuclear weapons or not is immaterial, it could rapidly develop them and has the knowledge and capacity to do so.
Really amazing video! Would you be considering sharing your sources and such for these?
The key sources are in the video description -- they are IAEA reports, filed by the Government of Sweden.
Great work!
Thanks! These two videos required almost a month of in depth research, double checking facts, and validating all of the findings. It is timely to share the actual picture of what Sweden did -- and can (and probably is going to soon) do again.
Ikea bomb (not a plushie)
Shipped disassembled; all you need is this cute little tool to put it together! Hahaha
Great video! Thanks
Glad you liked it! It is very extensively researched and every claim made is validated based on the historical record.
I guess you forgot about the SAAB B18, a larger two-engined bomber. It was more suitable for a bomb.
Thanks for mentioning that -- yes, I did leave that out of the video. Thanks for pointing it out! Nonetheless, it would have been too slow to "get the job done".
Well, we got the American nuclear umbrella in exchange. So its on the up and up..
It was a good trade at the time, one that stood the test of time.
Once we built things in this country....
Sweden's defense industry was one of the best in Europe for many decades. With the new defense budget being increased to 2.6% of GDP, we can expect that the defense industry will start to expand again.
I'm impressed, I've never heard an English speaker pronounce Dag Hammarskjold correctly :)
The tour guide at the UN headquarters couldn't do that haha
Thank you for your kind words! A lot of Americans have told me over and over that I should pronounce Viggen to rhyme with "BIG". Uhhh, no.
Very good pronunciation of the Swedish names!
Thank you, sir! Most Americans do not know how to pronounce these words.
Hmm, there also rumors about "the nuclear cannon" in Sweden. Who knows
Yes, that is correct. The Swedish nuclear weapons project originally based one of the designs on the US Army's atomic artillery shell.
ah yes, the blue and yellow painted "500 kg brandbomb m/58"-incendiary bomb
Yes, it is from the display that the museum set up at Linköping -- I am aware that it is not the actual bomb as is the museum itself.
To qualify as "the 4th largest nuclear power" Sweden would have had to have hundreds of nukes, those 6 nukes mentioned would literally put it at the bottom of the list and on par with South Africa, who also had about 5-10 nukes but kept them disassembled and later completely did away with them.
Yes, I agree -- though it was that "on paper", with the potential number of bombs that could be assembled on short notice quickly at one point in the timeline.
Had Sweden become the fourth nuclear power, it would have by definition been - at least - the one with the 4th largest arsenal too. Even if it had one bomb.
Interesting. I had no idea.
Most Swedes don't even know the details of this -- or that Olof Palme was essentially the "Father of the Sweden Bomb". That puts a whole new spin on his as yet unsolved murder.
@@HistoricWings They did claim to solve it last year actually. The entire thing put a new meaning to the word "anti-climatic"
@@JonathanLundkvist Yes, anticlimax is a huge understatement...
So, before there was any authorisation to do any such thing - certain people took it upon themselves to make the bomb...
What is wrong with this picture ?
You could say that a lot was wrong with the picture, though secret military projects are undertaken all the time without public knowledge or consent. When it is a nuclear bomb, the matter becomes more important for public approval.
I'd say you have pretty good prounanciation, atleast compared to others 😂❤
Thank you!
Sweden may have a small population, but calling the 4th largest country (by landmass) in Europe "tiny" is a bit much.
By American standards, compared to the size of the USA -- that is what was meant. Thanks for pointing that out! Much appreciated.
It has surströming warhead
I believe the surströming warhead has been outlawed under the Geneva Conventions, though some Ukrainian drone teams rigged up one to drop from a drone on a Russian bunker. It worked. The Russians abandoned the position. Not making this up.
when you have ABB and Ericsson, what do you need nukes for?
ofc all their equipment is backdoored.
Tiny Sweden?
What would you then call Germany, Poland and Italy? Negligible?
Tiny may be an overstatement, but the meaning is that Sweden is not a large country -- it has a population of around 10 million at this time. In terms of land area, it is only slightly bigger than the state of California.
@@HistoricWings Well, North America is a continent.
You could say it the other way around. California is tiny compared to Europe.
LoL so Sweden had a Nuclear bomb, whats next? Sweden have their own space program? ....oh wait 😉
Yes, about that space program... Alive and growing.
Imponerande Thomas
Thank you, good sir!
@@HistoricWings Är du svensk?
Svensk? Borde ju höras uttav uttalet att döma??
KTH = Kow Teh How 😂😂
@@tordj2508 ;D Den stavningen ser ut som skånska alternativt en asiatisk kampsport. En engelsman tex borde väl säga Kei tee heitsch. No offense till vieoskaparen - mycket bra video och engelska!
"rivaled the manhattan project in its scale" hrmmm?
Great well researched video except from that i subscribed!
For a country that has a population that is about 2.5% of the USA -- ON A PER CAPITA BASIS -- the project was Sweden's equivalent of the Manhattan Project. That is really a better way to have said it. Thank you for pointing that out.
@@HistoricWings Good video anyway!
90 seconds in the hyperbole and silliness starts. 'rivelled the Manhattan project in scale' - no it didn't. NOTHING Sweden could ever do would rival that project - go and look at the size and cost, it's all on Wikipedia.
On a per capita basis, it was a massive project. It was Sweden's equivalent of the Manhattan Project, that is what was meant. Thank you for pointing this out.
Who knows Sweden might still have the 4 bombs.
That's true. Strangely, you say that the number might be 4 bombs. That is the number of atomic bombs (tactical nuclear weapons based on plutonium cores) that is periodically mentioned in informal circles -- with no proof ever offered.
Omg hope Sweden will find its way back :(
I'm not sure I understand the comment, though I will add that Sweden considered restarting its nuclear weapons program, but the cost was very daunting and the timeline was long -- at least a decade of work would be required. An easier path forward (and one with less controversy) was to join NATO, which would place Sweden under the combined NATO nuclear umbrella, thus eliminating any need for Sweden to have its own retaliatory response.
Sweden didn't finish their nuclear program.
@@HistoricWings according to Wilhelm Agrell, Sweden ended up under USA's nuclear umbrella anyway, as Washington wasn't too keen on nuclear proliferation in Europe among countries not part of NATO or WP, as that was seen as a risk for nuclear war unrelated to NATO spreading into NATO territory and thus triggering a major war.
It should also be noted that the Atomic bomber preceded 37 Viggen, though the latter drew experience from the former.
"Sweden a tiny country in scandinavia" Did you smoke weed while writing the script, or did you completely ignore to look at a world map? Scandinavia is composed of 3 countries. Sweden, Norway Danemark. And of those Sweden is the largest. the smallest one is Danemark, the second largest is Norway. And even outside of scandinavia Sweden is by no means a "Tiny" country.
A better phrasing would have been Sweden is in Scandinavia; compared to countries like the USA, it is tiny. Thank you for your message! One should always remember that these videos are just spoken word, though after extensive research. If I were writing for a book, that sort of thing would have been caught in the editing process.
Dust it off and aim it East, only thing that stops a genocidal tyrant...
I think that there are many ways to end a tyranny short of resorting to nuclear weapons, but having nuclear weapons does tend to give tyrants pause in their genocidal plans.
Could the free peoples movement channel add something to the pot?
I can add Lise Meitner and the town of Ljungaverk close to Sundsvall where nobody wants to live anymore....
There are costs to nuclear power, nuclear weapons development, and nuclear... pretty much everything nuclear.
I dont like it
you are filling the video with a range of common aircraft that has nothing to do with nuclear delivery
If your nuclear program has not progressed far enough towards miniturize the warhead so fighter can carry it
you really need an ICMB to get one over to enemy territory
if you do not have ICMBs you need a really good bomber
and sweden had not mastered making the nuke miniature so it could be carried by fighters
they definitely had no bomber
they definitely had no ICBMs
they simply had no carrier
and the scale that sweden went about it would probably only yielded one single digit of bombs
so they sobered up and got peece loving
anyways this is in the wake of WWII FRESH in everyones mind.
it might have affected their mind why they were even begining to try make one.
the era 50s 60s the nuclear scientists were crazy, they proposed putting nuclear plants everywhere.
What do you think ? How about a nuclear plant in your city right in your neighbourhood fueling you with cheap electricity.
is it not fantastic to have one so close?
Thanks for the comments -- however, the characterization that I am "filling the video with a range of common aircraft that has nothing to do with nuclear delivery" is incorrect. In fact, Sweden worked hard to develop delivery systems and these very aircraft were part of that -- on this, the record is absolutely clear.
For instance, the Saab 32 Lansen was specifically designed to carry the SAAB "Robot-Byrån (RB) 04", or RB-04. While you may conclude that the RB-04 never carried nuclear warheads, you are probably unaware that it was initially designed specifically as an air-launched delivery system for tactical nuclear weapons. Concurrently, Sweden was working on its own variant of US Army nuclear artillery shells, which were designed to fit on the missile. That miniaturization work was not as successful as hoped, however. Ultimately, the RB-04 never carried a nuclear weapon as a result.
If you watch the second video in this series, you will see more about Sweden's efforts to develop a delivery system. Ultimately, it wasn't until the early 1970s when Sweden finally had a delivery system in place, but at that time the bomb program was wound down and ultimately put on hold.
@@HistoricWings maybe but you have to test that weapon to know you built it right.
where are you going to do that?
and what yields are we talking about here?
and what could possibly be a suitable target?
Leningrad?
All other nations tested their designs.
I doubt sweden could skip several steps, succeding with minaturization in one go, and have a working bomb without testing.
another suitable target could be an invasion fleet
BTW sweden is 3000 kilometers long so and a landing from sea is risky
so sweden assumed the russians take the north route UNLESS the soviet marine forces in the baltic had nothing better to do then they might try a marine landing.
the geography makes it absolute necessary to increase every fighters combat range if they going to be able to help out up north.
and accedentally it also means leningrad is in range.
sweden idientified some possible landing areas.
when sweden conscript army was the biggest we had like 4 armored brigades
and then possibly 1/2 one also.
The armored brigade I was in was going to mobilize around town Skövde and then move to a for the enemy >great< landing site called "Vikbolandet".
Our brigade was the one on the move.
Was another one in "Skåne" but it was pretty much fixed in position cause of great landing oppurtunities there.
I am old now so I am not able to account for what the remaining 2 armored brigades was supposed to do or where they were.
Very stupid of Sweden to let a parliamentary vote decide matters of national security.
"Officially"
Yes, it is interesting that they took a public vote. Democracy is a messy system, but the best kind of government anyway -- yet for matters of national security, the popular view, if not fully educated and aware of all of the classified matters at hand, is not always the most secure or sensible.
We test blowed some nukes
Here in the 60ys.
Sweden's secret past always fascinates us all! So much done, but in a very Swedish way always very quietly.
We did do some practical nuke simulations in the field with conventional explosives. That is a rather different thing. No nukes has be detonated on any purpose related to Sweden or Swedens nuclear weapon program.
So, I you still insisted - give us the proof thereof.
@@kjelllindberg6987 Det finns en sjö där uppe vid det gamla
Anriktning platsen. Den fanns inte där några veckor innan!
@@pernykvist3442 The lake Foajaure yes but that was created by exploding a massive amount of conventional explosives to study the blast effects. It was not a nuclear bomb.
@@skunkjobb Vi uppnådde den kritiska massan så jovisst var
det.
There are not so much 'Sweden' left to defend. In a decade or so the majority of the people here will be other nationalities with different loyalties. Swedes voted for this development...
Thank you for your comment. These are deeply political discussions and I will focus my work in this channel on aviation history.
Snowflake racist
so what Sweden had a sr71 Kelly was a fake a copy cat 😅 sounds about right , nice Sweden always ahead little country big thinking
Sweden's aviation industry has produced many extraordinary designs.
"It isn't a member of NATO" ... fyfan.
Not yet anyway.
Att gå med i NATO innebär bara att sätta plåster på den vidöppna halspulsåder som är sveriges militär idag... Militära allianser av den här skalan är sällan effektiva, eller ens nödvändiga. Om ett fullskaligt krig skulle utbryta finns det ingen chans för nato att försvara samtliga gränser mot deras fiender, men ockuperade områden ska säkert bombas till småbitar, såsom britterna gjorde, när de "räddade" danmark från nazisterna.
Om nu landet har fallit i fiendens händer, vilket man räknar med i branschen - så att säga - ja, vad gör det då för skillnad om vi är med i NATO eller inte? Striden mot fienden fortsätter i det ockuperade området, som om inget har hänt, för det faktum att det är ockuperat innebär just att vi inte är änderas fränder: Alltså har vi en gemensam fiende. Gemensamma fiender har alltid trumfat allianser, när allt kommer omkring. Särskilt om man kollar på historien. Något som man ofta gör i militären, vad jag förstår.
Nä, att gå med i NATO ser jag bara nackdelar med. Att begränsa möjligheter för traditionell diplomati - sådan där som amerikanarna inte verkar förstå sig på. Det kanske är europeisk tradition, vad vet jag? Men ska man begå massmord här, då ska man iallafall ha casus belli, och ALLTID lämna dörren öppen för förhandling. Att gå med i NATO och låta amerikanarna ställa ryssland inför ett ultimatum låter som en jävligt dålig ide, och det tror jag att de som tar beslutetet är väl medvetna om. Tyvvär styrs dessa förhoppningsvis rationella yrkesmän av ytterligare en högre auktoritet; jubelidioterna vi kallar politiker, som bara är intresserade av valfläsk.
Hurra för sverige!
...och rösta blankt, är du snäll ;)
"Tiny country".... Aha sure...
Yes, by American terms. Sweden has a population that is 1/35th the size of the US and with a landmass that is just slightly bigger than the US state of California.