3A CCCP
20th April 2008, 19:07
NEW NATO MEMBERS MEAN BIG BUCKS FOR US/EU ARMS PRODUCERS
When one thinks about the reason why the outdated NATO alliance is still expanding the obvious conclusion is that it is the means to enforce U.S./E.U. domination over the rest of the world. While I have no doubt about that function of the alliance, I think that only explains one aspect of the question.
Many people do not realize that the biggest beneficiaries of NATO expansion are the armament companies of the U.S. and E.U. Every time a new nation is absorbed into NATO the monopoly-capitalists who own/control these arms manufacturing corporations hear the distinctive ring of a cash register bell in their depraved, greed fevered brains! NATO is a cash cow that allows these companies to rake in huge profits with the admission of every new member-state.
In order for a country to join NATO it is required to convert its military over to the NATO "standard." As an example, let's take the simplest item that is required to be replaced - the rank and file infantryman's assault rifle. Hypothetically, if (GOD FORBID!) Belarus was absorbed into NATO its 100,000 man armed forces would be required to replace its standard AK-47 assault rifle with the M16 or another NATO approved rifle that takes the 5.56 NATO round.
This would also entail replacing the 7.62x39 ammunition and magazines of the AK for 5.56 NATO rounds and magazines of the M16. This means that initially Belarus would have to purchase 100,000 M16 rifles, probably one million M16 magazines (figuring ten 30 round mags per rifle), and at least a billion rounds of NATO 5.56 ammunition.
The same scenario would be played out for the Byelorussian military side arm. The semi-automatic Tokarev pistol would be replaced by the Italian Beretta and its ammunition and magazines.
The above examples are just the tip of the iceberg. The new NATO member is required to eventually produce its own armaments. I have no doubt that U.S. and E.U. arms companies would be happy to build new weapons plants and convert existing facilities to the NATO standard (for a hefty profit, of course!).
New NATO members bring in new profits for the U.S./E.U. purveyors of war and death. Is it any wonder that Bush fought so hard to get NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia before those countries were rejected???
3A CCCP!
Mikhail
P.S. I used Belarus as a hypothetical example, because I am familiar with their armed forces. Belarus, Russia, Serbia, and Moldova won't be joining NATO in this century!
When one thinks about the reason why the outdated NATO alliance is still expanding the obvious conclusion is that it is the means to enforce U.S./E.U. domination over the rest of the world. While I have no doubt about that function of the alliance, I think that only explains one aspect of the question.
Many people do not realize that the biggest beneficiaries of NATO expansion are the armament companies of the U.S. and E.U. Every time a new nation is absorbed into NATO the monopoly-capitalists who own/control these arms manufacturing corporations hear the distinctive ring of a cash register bell in their depraved, greed fevered brains! NATO is a cash cow that allows these companies to rake in huge profits with the admission of every new member-state.
In order for a country to join NATO it is required to convert its military over to the NATO "standard." As an example, let's take the simplest item that is required to be replaced - the rank and file infantryman's assault rifle. Hypothetically, if (GOD FORBID!) Belarus was absorbed into NATO its 100,000 man armed forces would be required to replace its standard AK-47 assault rifle with the M16 or another NATO approved rifle that takes the 5.56 NATO round.
This would also entail replacing the 7.62x39 ammunition and magazines of the AK for 5.56 NATO rounds and magazines of the M16. This means that initially Belarus would have to purchase 100,000 M16 rifles, probably one million M16 magazines (figuring ten 30 round mags per rifle), and at least a billion rounds of NATO 5.56 ammunition.
The same scenario would be played out for the Byelorussian military side arm. The semi-automatic Tokarev pistol would be replaced by the Italian Beretta and its ammunition and magazines.
The above examples are just the tip of the iceberg. The new NATO member is required to eventually produce its own armaments. I have no doubt that U.S. and E.U. arms companies would be happy to build new weapons plants and convert existing facilities to the NATO standard (for a hefty profit, of course!).
New NATO members bring in new profits for the U.S./E.U. purveyors of war and death. Is it any wonder that Bush fought so hard to get NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia before those countries were rejected???
3A CCCP!
Mikhail
P.S. I used Belarus as a hypothetical example, because I am familiar with their armed forces. Belarus, Russia, Serbia, and Moldova won't be joining NATO in this century!