SVERIGE, NATO OCH KÄRNVAPNEN En kvalitativ studie om motsättningen mellan realism och idealism i synen på kärnvapen i Sverige

Abstract

When Sweden joined NATO in March 2024, it cut ties with a two centuries long tradition of neutrality and military non-alignment. This marks a significant shift within Swedish security politics and raises many new questions that needs to be answered. One such question regards NATO’s nuclear weapons policy. Whether or not Sweden should allow NATO to place nuclear weapons on Swedish territory is an issue that creates a divide between different political and societal actors, shedding light on a classic conflict within the study of international relations. Where one side emphasizes security and deterrence, the other side focuses on values and identity showing clear signs of the realist-idealist dichotomy. Sweden makes a particularly ambiguous case due to the fact that both realism and idealism clearly manifest themselves within Swedish security politics simultaneously. This paper uses argumentation analysis in an attempt to answer the question of whether one, and if so which, of these views provides the more convincing answer to the question on nuclear weapons placement in Sweden. The results show a slightly greater support for a realist perspective. This is mostly due to realists having an easier time proving that deterrence work, whereas idealists have it more difficult explaining how smaller states can successfully influence more powerful states to behave in a preferred way. The results highlight the complexity of the debate on nuclear weapons. Put simply: realism is not ideal, and idealism is not realistic.