It doesnt really matter what I claim, what we know is sufficient and we have that already quoted here.
> Classified documents point to covert US and UK activity. Former US secretary of defense Caspar Weinberger stated that Western submarines operated ‘regularly’ and ‘frequently’ in Swedish waters in order to ‘test’ the Swedish coastal defences, and former British navy minister Sir Keith Speed confirms the existence of such operations. Royal Navy submarine captains admit having carried out top-secret operations in Swedish waters, and that a member of Cabinet signed approval for every single operation
as well as
>Many military officials and politicians said they had never heard of the NATO exercises.
>``You need some sort of agreement to do a thing like this. But I know nothing of such an agreement,″ said Admiral Per Rudberg, head of the navy from 1978 to 1984.
>Current Defense Minister Bjoern von Sydow said he was surprised, but added, ``I have no reason to question what a former U.S. defense secretary is saying.″
To summarize, we know that both the US and the UK have carried out submarine incursions into swedish waters, the US on a "frequent and regular base". We also know, that the head of the Swedish Navy did not know these operations, "to test Swedish costal defenses" took place.
So unless you are arguing the source (which source, AP?) is doctored, I really dont understand what you are trying to do with Occam's razor.
On the implications of these informations: If we are arguing about the effect on the Swedish population as well as on the government, I think it would be fair to summarize the period as Sweden getting more and more nervous with one sub sighting after another. Which at the time was assumed to be soviet subs by the public, leading to an increased fear of a soviet invasion and a more positive view on becoming a NATO member. Sweden is a democracy, the populations view is rather important.
