How NATO Promotes the Use of Nuclear Weapons | NATO works actively to spread nuclear missiles to its member nations in support of US militarism — it’s time Britain said no
How NATO Promotes the Use of Nuclear Weapons | NATO works actively to spread nuclear missiles to its member nations in support of US militarism — it’s time Britain said no
6 comments
>Firstly it must be said that Russia should be condemned utterly for its brutal attack on Ukraine. However, this does not mean that NATO is an alliance which is to be supported as a defensive peace body…
Like all ‘Stop the War’ articles, it starts with a token condemnation of Russia for one line followed by the remainder of the article going *’America / Britain / NATO bad!’*
Corbyn should have been expelled from Labour long ago just for being the President of this scummy organisation. I wish Starmer would do that now; send his cult a loud message.
So, NATO is an awful aggressive organisation? Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is NATO’s best excuse to fight and go to war, yet it hasn’t fired a shot. It spent most of January and February trying to talk Putin out of military action. US nuclear weapons were withdrawn from the UK in 2008. NATO isn’t the problem, it’s insane totalitarian dictatorships, who would attack NATO nations at the drop of a hat if they weren’t protected by nuclear weapons. Putin is now threatening the use of nukes on a daily basis.
>Firstly it must be said that Russia should be condemned utterly for its brutal attack on Ukraine.
One sentence criticising Russia, then 750 worlds of “NATO BAD”. How do they publish this shit with a straight face.
>As countries joined NATO they had to jettison their Soviet military equipment so there was interoperability and buy from the West, mainly the US.
Yeah I’m sure the Americans are raking it when Poland buys Leopard tanks from *checks notes* Germany, and the Czechs get their jets from *checks notes again* Sweden?
> As conflicts rage across the world, it must be remembered that for some, war is good business.
In all seriousness, if you want to criticise arms manufacturers then go for it, but blaming it on the Americans is kinda stupid. We export plenty of weapons, Germany sold 10bn Euros worth of arms last year. It’s an international business. Plus Russia is up to it as well, it’s not an anti-Russia thing.
>From the start NATO has had a policy of holding nuclear weapons and a policy of first use of nuclear weapons
So what? We’ve had nukes since the 50s. So does Russia.
> When the British government was asked in Parliament if it had a policy of first use, the minister replied that yes, as we were in NATO and that was NATO’s policy.
Which minister, which government?
>So much for Britain having an independent foreign policy.
There is more to foreign policy than the criteria for deploying nuclear weapons
> The submarines are based at Faslane in Scotland which has been described as “the US forward base in Europe.”
By who. Citation needed.
>There has been no good faith: nuclear weapons have been developed and the number of them has increased.
Including by Russia.
>Again, this is counter to established law: under the Treaty of Tlatelolco, Latin America became a nuclear-weapon free zone — but NATO is a nuclear-armed alliance.
The treaty prevents the acquisition, storage, testing or use of nuclear weapons in that area. It doesn’t prevent formation of alliances with countries which have nuclear weapons on the other side of the world.
> The nuclear weapons were removed from Lakenheath in 2008, by which time the site had 33 underground storage vaults and stored around 110 B61 gravity bombs that could be dropped from F-15E warplanes based there.
The title claims that NATO works to spread nuclear missiles. Gravity bombs are not missiles…
>Kristensen believes the base is RAF Lakenheath, just 80 miles from London, has already received a nuclear-capable fighter plane — the F35A. A total of 24 F-35As are expected there.
The B61 can be dropped by basically anything with a pylon, this is not news.
Yep that read like a ranty six formers politics essay.
Upvoted for visibility, not because I agree with these cranks.
Do they really expect to gain support for such sentiment at a time Russia is threatening nuclear war
I like the fact we have nukes