SHARE
New figures show NATO members outspend Russia 10 times on nuclear weapons
|
NATO leaders meeting in Ankara have announced more large increases in weapons spending as they continue to rearm because of fears of Russian aggression and the US pulling back from its military commitment to the alliance. In their final communique, they also focused on the threat that Iran could develop a nuclear weapon, omitting to mention that the only country in the Middle East that actually has a nuclear arsenal is Israel which has attacked Iran twice in the past year. The leaders also said they would modernise the alliance with “an appropriate mix of nuclear, conventional and missile defence capabilities”. What they failed to acknowledge is their own responsibility for heightened nuclear tensions that results from the modernisation and expansion of the US, British and French nuclear arsenals; the push to extend the deployment of US nuclear weapons closer to Russia, and the discussions about a new French nuclear umbrella over countries near Russia. Recent ICAN research shows that the reality is that NATO’s nuclear-armed members spend ten times what Russia does on nuclear weapons – in 2025 the US, UK and France spent a combined $89.5 billion to Russia’s $9.5 billion – yet it seems all this investment in weapons does not bring a sense of security. The Executive Director of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Melissa Parke, said: “NATO outspends Russia 10 times on nuclear weapons and yet still feels threatened by Moscow. How much more needs to be spent for NATO countries to feel secure? How many more weapons in how many more countries? NATO states need to understand that nuclear weapons are a bad security investment. NATO’s nuclear weapons and its nuclear deterrence doctrine threaten the security of all countries, including of course themselves given they would not be immune from the global impact of nuclear conflict”. Ms Parke added: “Nuclear weapons do not make NATO’s countries and their peoples safe, they make them a target in the event of nuclear war and increase the risk of such a war that would be devastating for us all. For its part, Russia has continued to make tacit and explicit threats to use nuclear weapons since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine failed to achieve a quick victory. But as nuclear tensions between Russia and NATO countries have been escalating, NATO members’ response to Moscow's nuclear signalling has been to increase military support for Ukraine while modernising their own nuclear arsenals and encouraging proliferation, without thinking through the strategic impact of escalating nuclear tensions and considering alternatives. ICAN has been critical of the recent decision of Finland and discussions in Lithuania to allow nuclear weapons onto their territory which borders Russia because these moves are unnecessary, shortsighted and suggestive of an unthinking panic gripping some NATO governments that is only driving up nuclear tensions with Moscow. |
|
For further information or to request an interview, contact: Alistair Burnett, ICAN Head of Communications [email protected] +41 78 238 7179 |