Nuclear deterrence is an important aspect of strategic stability

Historically and as a whole, nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence are rarely discussed in public in Finland, either in official public documents or by members of the government. When the subject is broached, it is within a broader framework of arms reduction/disarmament discussions, or during the past few years through an acknowledgement that nuclear weapons have reentered broader discussions about security (in a way not seen since the Cold War). However, in private, almost all politicians recognize that nuclear weapons have historically had a stabilizing influence, and quite a few see that nuclear weapons and the deterrence they provide are an aspect of strategic stability. Among some there is a wistful sense of a lost opportunity in the late 2000s–early 2010s, when “things could have gone another way,” with Obama talking about Global Zero, NATO discussing whether there was a need for (US) tactical weapons in Europe etc. However, with the rather rapid recent changes nuclear deterrence is now recognized in Finland as a key tool in maintaining stability (particularly among the senior civil servants). It is rarely if ever acknowledged, that during the Cold War this strategic stability also benefited Finland; though the dark side was that apparently both NATO and the Warsaw Pact  quite a few nukes on Finnish territory.