Beware the nice ones...

Poor Baltics

This looks like a canon comic…
Are you Humon in disguise?

I hate war

Denmark situation was worse. After DK decided not to have nuclear weapons (It started out on the forefront of nuclear research), the policy of the USSR was to nuke all Danish land until nothing over a foot was left standing so they could sail their baltic fleet out through the Danish straits.

The US knew this and had deviced a counter: Nuking all Danish straits until it was impossible to sail through them.

In case of WW3, Denmark would not only have ceased to exists as a country and a people, it would have ceased to exist as a geographical features.

Russia's smile is so lovely though

@moneblis It's a fake. Don't believe it!

'@Baronese' Exactly. As' @Zuperkrunch' says, no is yes in Russia, especially with their fraudulent elections.

@RedFascist i never said no is yes in russia, i wrote no is the new yes.. Nothing in russian language..

Aww, I like it when Russia smiles here, it looks really genuine. See, he's not a bad guy, he just needs someone to like him. I doubt it's funny when people around you are afraid of you and think you're going to invade them even though you really don't want to. I guess that's a possible side effect of being big and powerful.

Nah, just have some skills in using Paint)

How come Russia!s hat changes color and gets fluffier in the second panel, but turns another different color and goes back to the first panel’s design in the third panel?

@FullMetalHorse It's a fanmade comic, so they must be pictures of Russia from old satw comics, wherein the hats are drawn differently. That or Russia's hat gets fluffier the more unthreatened he feels.

Who hadn't?

Finland.

But we actually are very, very scared right now. espessially now when Nato tells us they won't help us.

@EUcomicartist , well, what's the problem? You have all the technology, you have all the resources. Just make the bomb & became the nuclear power for themselves; for Sweden, the long-standing neutral nation, this would not cause any significant political problems. You have decent submarine navy & air force, you produce cruise missiles, so the delivery systems would not be a problem.

Frankly, arm race is the much more efficient way to avoid the war, than any pacifist declaration; if your military capabilities are constantly changing, it is very hard for potential opponent to correctly estimate them.

@Dilandu It whould actually make a whole lot of political problems. We are Neutral and if we for some reason just turns our evil side up again we whould have problems from not only Scandinavia, but whole Europe whoulden't maybe want to help us anymore or trade either. And our army are very very small. We have just started with "Värnplikt" again in Sweden. That makes us in the age of 19 guilty to go into the army if we get called in. Happy me tho, I don't wanna join the army and are not allowed because I have Aspergers syndrome. I can't tolerate loud noices and lights. =)

@EUcomicartist , what "evil side"? Nuclear bombs aren't "evil side"; they are just weapons. Weapons could not be "good" or "evil", peoples that use that weapon - could. But Sweden, of all potential nuclear powers (and there are quite a lot of them, actually - the nuclear weapon tech is so old, that many countries could build it with little efforts. They just did not try to do it either because they have no opponents worthy of such efforts, or because they worried that their opponents would do the same), is most neutral nation, with long traditions of mantaining such neutrality. Chances that Sweden would use its nukes for anything other than self-defense is literally zero.

So if Sweden deploy her nukes, European public may went hysterical - let's be fair, European public tend to went hysterical, when military matters are concered, and the answer is not "let's do nothing and demand that USA should protect us"! - but it would be practically no matter in any real political consideration of the West. And for Sweden, it would be the easy way to boost defense capabilities without using an awful lot of conscripts. Nuclear bombs are much cheaper to mantain in peacetime; they do not demand payment & medical services, they just lay quietly in storages & required only periodical maintenance.

@Dilandu This have gone too far into plitics than I, in my age can handle. Let's just drop it. XD

@Dilandu The opposition to acquiring nuclear weapons would create a lot of unrest in Sweden & neighboring countries as well, Northern Europe (by which I mean Fenno-Scandinavia and Baltic countries) has remained free of nuclear weapons for a long time with Denmark and Norway having refused to allow nukes on their soil during peace time, Finland having advocated nuke-free Nordic since 1963 & Sweden having advocated expanding the nuke-free zone to cover all of Baltic sea, Russia of course has not removed their nukes from Kola peninsula (that I know of) though those should be mostly submarine-launched ICBMs, if Sweden were to acquire nukes Russia would bring shorter-range nuclear-tipped missiles into Karelia (not sure if they already have nukes stationed in Kaliningrad, but after Swedish nuclear proliferation they certainly would) which would put a lot of pressure on Finland to acquire a missile defense system, which would definitely anger Russia.

So no, Sweden should *not* acquire nukes.

@Tsuhna We already have medium range surface-to-air missile system which should be able to defend against missiles too. It is important to notice there is huge difference between shooting down shorter range missiles and ballistic intercontinental ones with multiple payloads. icbm requires much earlier interception before it releases payloads in space to make each warhead much harder to intercept.

@Pauli uhh, actually we don't have SAMs capable of intercepting missiles, NASAMS is just a system combining AMRAAM launchers networked with optical sensors for initial target acquisition, AMRAAM's maximum range is 160km, assuming it's launched at altitude and doesn't have to maneuver much, the estimates for its range when launched from the ground are barely tenth of that, that's not enough to detect and intercept missiles before they are already over something you don't want blown up

@Dilandu #9744636
Si vis pacem para bellum

@Dilandu Well WW1 is there to disagree with you. Both sides thought they had invested so much in armament and military strength that the other side would never dared to attack them. And then Franz Ferdinand got killed in Sarajevo...
I'd also like to point out that it wasn't the arm race that stopped the cold war but the opposite. Should the USA had had Trump instead of Kennedy as a president in 1962, I'm not so sure we would still be able to talk about the cold war...

The only problem weapons are good at solving is overpopulation but even then I think they are less efficient that disease and starvation...