NATO Chief Says He Needs More Nuclear Weapons, Wants to Start Producing Them Again

And here I thought one of the core principles of modern NATO was anti-proliferation.

This is a February, 2023 post on their website:

Turning on a dime like this can’t be related to the Ukraine directly.

Instead, it is increasingly starting to become undeniable to an objective observer that the ruling elite in the West are actively pushing for a third world war, which they believe will involve the widespread use (or at least the constant threat of widespread use) of nuclear bombs.

This may or may not be a cause for concern, but again, I don’t think it can be denied that this is what we are witnessing.

The Guardian:

The Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, has indicated that the military alliance is considering whether to increase the number of available nuclear weapons, triggering warnings from experts about the possibility of a new arms race.

Stoltenberg said Nato could, for the first time, face a significant nuclear threat from two fronts – Russia and China – and that it may be necessary to increase the number of deployable warheads as a deterrent.

Speaking to the Telegraph on Sunday, Stoltenberg said: “I won’t go into operational details about how many nuclear warheads should be operational and which should be stored, but we need to consult on these issues. That’s exactly what we’re doing.”

He’s such a reasonable man.

Though the remarks were deliberately cautious, they echo comments from the White House a week before, warning about a perceived need to respond to increases in warhead numbers from China, Russia and North Korea.

Pranay Vaddi, the top national security council arms control official, said this month: “Absent a change in adversary arsenals, we may reach a point in the coming years where an increase from current deployed numbers is required”.

One analyst said Stoltenberg, visiting the US on Monday, appeared to be amplifying American messaging aimed at Moscow and Beijing, although Nato has historically not been focused on China.

Sebastian Brixey-Williams, the executive director of the Basic security thinktank, said: “I read it at this stage as a form of signalling intended to sober up Russia and China in order to try to avert an arms race. But we should not assume it is a bluff, and it may in fact make an arms race more likely.”

Sadly, this all feels inevitable.

We know for a fact that the Russians and Chinese are not going to back down. That has been made clear.

The West, conversely, has a history of backing down, though they are continuing to amplify the crazy talk, making blatantly, demonstrably false claims in order to justify bizarrely irresponsible kinds of escalation.

The original arguments in support of a war with Russia in the Ukraine were never really stated very clearly, but basically amounted to an argument about Westphalian sovereignty – the idea that national borders cannot ever change, and that by attempting to alter the border between Russia and the Ukraine, Putin was undoing the entire world order.

Needless to say, none of these people had an explanation as to how Kosovo or their very recent push for a Kurdish state fit into this paradigm. But whatever. The argument was about the sacred nature of borders.

The argument then shifted into the claim that Putin was an imperialist, potentially planning to invade all of Europe. Those arguments were even more muddled, and so divorced from reality as to be dismissed out of hand by any serious adult. (Remember that the same people claiming Putin was going to be marching on Paris were also constantly telling us how weak Russia is and how they are on the verge of a collapse, which meant that the arguments lacked internal consistency, even if you did not make any attempt to scrutinize them.)

Now, we appear to be in the midst of a second pivot, where we are being told that there is an emerging cold war (which might already be here) between nations aligned with China and nations aligned with the US, and that this cold war is inevitably going to turn hot, and so there is really nothing anyone in the West can do other than start a massive arms race in preparation for the showdown.

This second pivot is entirely based on the first pivot, and really doesn’t have any relationship to the current conflict in the Ukraine. The issue is that the stakes in the Ukraine were always theoretically very low. This was clear even with the hysterical talk from Western leaders and institutions. While we were told that Putin absorbing 30-40% of the Ukraine would be a disaster for the world, the average person couldn’t really comprehend why that would matter very much.

But an impending nuclear war? That’s a big deal for everyone.

I’ve laid this out in terms of three separate narratives, because it’s clear that most people have not really noticed the way this narrative has been in a constant state of transformation, but with NATO now openly calling for a nuclear arms race, it’s difficult for anyone to look at the situation and not say “well, that escalated quickly.”


The hope of the average person would be that this cold war ends up like the last cold war, and this whole thing sort of freezes in place (as the word “cold” implies). Then, you would hope that the West would slowly collapse internally, as a result of all of this external pressure they’ve brought on themselves, and the Chinese would become the undisputed world power, and base their new world order on commerce as opposed to ultra-violence.

Personally, I am not philosophically opposed to a nuclear war that kills billions of people. I just can’t really see how that would be such a bad thing. I too would prefer the Chinese maneuver themselves into a position of dominance before the nukes start flying, but the nukes would solve the problem just the same.

(To anyone saying “but Anglin, you’re really okay with billions dying???” – if you’re asking that question at all, you’ve either drastically overestimated or underestimated me in some critical way. Yes, I’m definitely okay with that.)

What is not realistic is a situation where the West somehow changes course, short of being put in its place by China. That simply will not happen. Electoral politics do not ever change anything in the modern West, and these people are clearly going for broke, like a junkie or a gambler who is willing to put it all on the line with zero concern for the consequences.

In my view, hoping for any kind of change in the West internally is emblematic of deep psychological derangement.

Hopefully, we can get over that, and people can start preparing for the real potential outcomes of the situation we see developing right in front of us, everywhere.