|
|
|
|
|
by ptero
1173 days ago
|
|
> Btw if it's either NATO or nuclear bombs, why didn't Finland get nuclear bombs in the last 60 years? Finland is a small country and nukes are very expensive (and hard) to deal with all the way: development, manufacture, deployment, service. The pressure to have your own nukes is low when you consider an attack unlikely, which was the case for Finland for the last 60 years. Countries that did not feel so safe moved much faster (considering different fates of Mr. Gaddafi and Mr. Kim). But recent Russian actions motivated a lot of its neighbors who were not worried before to spend whatever is needed to make an attack on them prohibitively expensive. |
|