There’s a huge gulf between having a few nuclear weapons (North Korea?) and being a creditable nuclear power. I don’t doubt that Sweden has the resources or know-how, but it’s not an overnight process. The U.S. and Russia have three generations of extensive testing and production that cannot be duplicated overnight.
I do doubt that Sweden has the resolve to dedicate about 10% of its GDP for several decades to a development program.
In the 1980’s Saddam Hussein had about 100,000 people working full time on a nuclear weapons program for ten years and he did not succeed in even making a rudimentary device. He had many advantages over the U.S. 1940’s effort, including a known working design and help from Western countries like France in acquiring key components.
Sweden is nowhere near the total technological capacity of the US.
Still, there are certain areas where Sweden is ahead.
Two examples:
- Telecommunication
http://www.ericsson.com/technology/technologies_az.shtml
- Naval stealth technology
(see above)
But Russia?
If Sweden would have been given two years of preparation and would have been given full support by the nations sharing the same devotion to democracy which we do, this is what would’ve happened;
- Russia’s airforce would have been wiped out
- Russia’s Baltic navy would have been sunk
Once this is accomplished, there won’t be anyone in the Kreml fingering on firing buttons, because Moscow will
be abandonded and Russia west of Ural will be flooded by Swedish tanks.
Unlike the Nazis, we don’t fancy the idea of invading the largest country on Earth on horseback.
Russians are great individuals, but never allow them to form into a powerful nation.