Why Finland will seek NATO membership and why it shouldn’t | IPPNW peace and health blog

NATO has strongly opposed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which is very regrettable. NATO claims that is has a legal right to have nuclear weapons. 

Thus, if Finland joins NATO we would be part of NATO’s nuclear deterrence, which is a very dangerous and unstable construction. Even though the number of nuclear weapons has been reduced up to one fourth from the times of Cold War, the overkill capacity is still several hundred fold. There are still more than 13,000 nuclear warheads, most of which are owned by Russia and the US. Of these about 2,000 are on continuous alert in silos, on bombers, or on submarines and can be launched within 15-20 minutes.

Deterrence is based on the idea that when both sides have the capacity to destroy the enemy totally, no one dares to use them. The result of using nuclear weapons would be Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). The trouble is that deterrence relies on decision makers always thinking rationally, and on technology that never fails. One mistake anywhere in the chain can result to the end of our civilization.

Another fundamental flaw in the deterrence concept is that nuclear war can begin by accident. There have been numerous “close call” situations, when authorized people have not launched their missiles despite an alert of the enemy’s weapons coming in. 

Why Finland will seek NATO membership and why I still think we shouldn’t | IPPNW peace and health blog