Comment by thomashabets2

> [the two parties] conflate civilian and military use of nuclear energy

I would never associate these two parties with competence or intelligence, and there certainly are people who think that a power plant is basically a bomb.

But no, their rhetoric against nuclear power today is at least ostensibly environmental. Well, as it's becoming clearer and clearer to everyone that environmentally it's at the very least the least bad option, they are shifting into trying to make it about economics. Of course completely ignoring that they want to price in (like in this thread) insurance with nuclear, but don't want to price in environmental damage of the alternatives.

Between 1987 and 2006 "the thought crime law" made it illegal in Sweden to even think about constructing a nuclear power plant. https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankef%C3%B6rbudet

How much does nuclear power cost? Well, it was literally illegal in Sweden to run those calculations until 2006. Could criminalizing thought for decades maybe drive up the costs, once the law is repealed?

> New hydro dams?

Unlikely. It's already built out where feasible and economical. And besides, the Greens would block new hydro at scale because of their environmental impact.

> How could the replace the current 25% of nuclear electricity?

Most common argument I see is "we'll just import it", which is just greenwashing since that comes from fossil fuels.

> ‘Peaceful’ Sweden once sought nuclear weapons.

I don't see the contradiction. USSR took 10% of Finland in living memory, hell that was just single digit years before Sweden started looking into becoming a nuclear state. The Baltics were under USSR control too, and during the cold war they (USSR) seized Swedish ships in international waters and killed and otherwise "disappeared" the crew.

I find the article you linked complete garbage. It's viewing 1940s defence choices through a 2020s post-nonproliferation treaties and post MAD game theory lens.

But even if we do that, would it be un-peaceful to have deterrence? Sweden preemptively surrendered to Germany in WW2 (a bit of hyperbole, and doesn't account for secret allies collaboration), rather than have the country destroyed. Having a nuclear deterrence would mean not having to surrender again, when the Russian comes.

Hopefully NATO membership has the deterrence without the drawback. But of course NATO wouldn't be NATO without its nuclear members. And with the US becoming unreliable, Sweden's defence is still backed by the nuclear agreement with France. So own nukes or not, at least by treaty Sweden still has nuclear weapons as deterrence. Is it really vital to discuss the operational control? If that's the sticking point, then fair enough. I'm not saying it's NOT a difference.

A better critique of Sweden is its relatively huge arms exports. But that too is not black and white. Si vis pacem, para bellum (if you want peace, prepare for war).

Every single word you said is wrong.

I know HN comments should be more constructive than that, but your comment is setting all these trumpesque fires in the form of lies, that no constructive debate or rebuttal would be useful. You would not be convinced, and anybody reading the back and forth would be under the misapprehension that "the truth is probably somewhere in between".