The Nordic region has the technology and money to establish an independent nuclear weapons value chain. Therefore, the Nordic region should consider acquiring its own nuclear weapons, says the Norwegian major.
We are now experiencing a strategic paradigm shift. The US security guarantee has been a fundamental element in our understanding of security policy since the Second World War.
This is what Major Johannes Kibsgaard, head teacher at the Norwegian Defence College/War College, writes in an article in Aftenposten. He points out that already under Obama it became clear that the US could not manage more than one war at a time.
The Ukraine war emphasises that this is correct. If the US is to guarantee peace in Europe, the risk of war in Asia increases. Such a war will increase the price of both electricity and taco accessories.
There are, of course, limits to how many fronts the US can get involved in. But Europe is incapable of engaging in a single real war. In fact, Europe is unable to protect its own borders, nor to ensure the safety of its citizens inside its own country.
In our situation, the price of taco accessories is fairly insignificant. European politicians have managed to send the price of electricity soaring without any help from others.
Kibsgaard believes that we can no longer bet everything on one horse, the USA. That’s why we need to turn our attention to EU. We’ve heard this before.
Europe is an important horse, and France is taking the lead. But who will eventually be the jockey? Will it be French politician Marine Le Pen, Alice Weidel from Alternativ für Deutschland, the Polish politician Jarosław Kaczyński or Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán?
If it’s Macron (or Starmer) who holds the leader’s jersey, Europe is finished.
I think the Nordic region is a safer horse for the long run. Geography, history and culture bind us together, even if there are also differences in focus areas – and languages.
The Nordic region has almost no defence. Sweden is a disaster area, and Norway is working hard to end up in the same situation.
The solution is to start a debate on nuclear weapons, the major believes.
Strategic nuclear weapons wipe out cities, and the ability to respond to this is the ultimate life insurance for states. Tactical nuclear weapons serve a different purpose. They make it possible to penetrate an entrenched frontline and clear the skies of stealth aircraft that conventional missiles are unable to lock on to.
The problem is that Europe lacks tactical nuclear weapons, while Russia is believed to have around 1,500 of them. This asymmetry gives the Russians a big advantage, according to Kibsgaard. His proposed solution is for the Nordic countries to strengthen their deterrence by co-operating and acquiring tactical nuclear weapons.
The Nordic region has the technology and money to establish an independent nuclear weapons value chain à la France.
The biggest problem, however, will be for our Nordic peace and harmony-loving peoples to take this debate and eventually settle on the fact that this is necessary.
The problem is: Would Norway and the Nordic countries really be willing to use tactical nuclear weapons in a crisis situation, for example against Russian forces?
Will the Russians not respond to a nuclear attack? Does the Major believe that the Russians will play fair and think that tactical nuclear weapons should only be responded to with the same coin?
This is at least what we can call a slippery slope. Besides: Although tactical nuclear weapons have a maximum range of 500 kilometres, they can be launched from aircraft and warships, including submarines. This makes the entire Nordic region a possible target for a counterattack.
With a force of up to 50 kilotonnes, such weapons can do tremendous damage in cities such as Oslo, Stockholm and Copenhagen, all of which would be within range.
A better solution is to stop making the US a pariah and instead work with Trump to bring peace to Ukraine.
