Talk:Swedish nuclear weapons program
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article contains a translation of Svenska kärnvapenprogrammet from sv.wikipedia. |
Original research
editArticle currently reads in part:
As for Robot 08, the previously classified documents provide no support for the claim that something other than aerial bombs would have been prioritized. Nuclear-armed anti-ship missiles (as the RBS-15 is believed to have such a non-conventional option capability), as well as nuclear-armed torpedoes, would primarily have been targeted at naval transportation. However, the study of nuclear devices came to the conclusion that a bomb dropped in the home port would have the greatest impact. At sea, naval fleets would be dispersed to reduce casualties from nuclear attack. Statements about plans on nuclear ammunition for 155 mm Swedish artillery greater than 25 km range should be viewed with even greater skepticism. Since the US developed nuclear ammunition for its 155 mm artillery and the USSR developed ammunition for its 152 mm, certainly a Swedish device was technically possible. The only American type of device of this calibre that was actually completed, W48, had only a 72-ton yield even though it required as much plutonium as a significantly higher yielding device. Explosives with greater effect were primarily used in artillery with 203 mm and 280 mm barrels. These artillery projectiles used a different design principal, linear implosion instead of a traditional spherical implosion bomb. Such designs sacrificed efficiency and yield to reduce the payload’s diameter. Since Sweden’s plutonium supply was always a limiting factor in its nuclear program, and cost-effectiveness was a concern, it is unlikely that Sweden would have sacrificed multiple aerial bombs to build one battlefield device, especially when taking into account the reduced yield and additional development expenses.
There's lots of other OR in the article but that's probably the worst... note only one reference, midway through, and that to a work in Swedish which is not avaiable online.
The apparently unsourced statements incude a claim that previously classified documents provide no support... (says who?) the RBS-15 is believed... (by whom?) and so on. Too many to tag.
It may all be true for all I know. It all makes sense. But that doesn't make it encyclopedic. Andrewa (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)