Naturalising nuclear deterrence

A comparative analysis of Finnish and Swedish discourses on nuclear weapon politics, 2016-22

Abstract

Finland and Sweden’s decisions to join NATO not only marks the end of a long period of neutrality and military non-alignment for the Nordic neighbours - they also require major shifts in their policies and self-perceptions related to nuclear weapons, disarmament, and nuclear deterrence. Drawing on a comparative research design and theory on depoliticisation, this article analyses how joining a nuclear alliance was made possible in two historical contexts marked by traditional opposition towards nuclear weapons. Comparing domestic deliberations about the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and NATO membership between 2016–2022, our findings suggest that two key narratives are essential for understanding how the nuclear dimension of NATO membership was reconciled in both countries. First, ‘the virtue of (disarmament) pragmatism’ narrative centres around how the historically stratified Finnish pragmatic approach to nuclear disarmament served as a guiding principle in both countries. Second, ‘the necessity of extended (nuclear) deterrence’ narrative enabled the nuclear dimension of NATO membership to become reconciled with Finland and Sweden’s historically neutral and non-aligned policies.