Why not to join NATO

When looking through the issues of Hbl which had piled up during my travel to Germany, I noticed that there had been a new initiative to get a discussion going about the possibility that Finland could join Nato. Considering that both the head of government and the president of Finland belong to a party which has always wanted to join NATO, there was little surprise about this.
Being politically Left, I of course am very much against joining NATO. Not much of a surprise there either. But perhaps one could list some reasons for such an opinion (just in case that there should still arise a discussion in which reasons were needed):
In Germany, I met a man who is 75 years old and has spent his professional life in the import-export business. I know him a little, a brother of mine knows him much better. I was informed that one of his standing opinions is that he likes best to have to deal with the Japanese, and least of all with US Americans – for the reason that they will always try to cheat. This was what also the present German minister of defence had to learn recently: the army would have liked a ”drönare” capable of flying distances of 10.000 km, at heights of 20.000 m, able to supervise a very large area by, e.g., recording all types of communications, but not carrying weapons – altogether something like, in capability, the most recent version of the US spy plane U2, but remote-contolled. About this project there had been signed a development contract with the US firm Northrop-Grumman (combined from two firms which both have long experience with the production of military aircraft); the electronics to be developed by a European firm. Now, quite a number of years after signing the contract, more than 600 mio Euro had gone, and still the drönare could not even start before somebody in USA had pressed a certain button … . The German minister nearly lost his seat, the air traffic authorities anyway refused the flying permit for the drönare (as the US authorities had done already earlier – the reason being that there were insufficient guarantees against collisions in midair), the whole project was scrapped. In effect, German money had payed the development costs for technology which remained in the hands of those US firms, who anyway had at no time left the thing out of their strict control (one always had to phone them whether they please could press that button …). And if one imagines the situation that Germany were taking part in some UN mission which would demand the supervision of Israel, there would not be any guarantee whatsoever that there were, in that drönare, not some electronic bug which would make it possible for the US, or even Israel, simply to prevent the drönare from fulfilling its mission. As said above (and not by me), they always try to cheat … . And we know that both the US and Israel tend to feel fully justified in whatever they are doing … .
If we now assume that Finland would join the NATO, then we could expect that (a) Finand would come under pressure to buy the (rather expensive) products of the US military industry, while (b) the known tendency of the US not to want to risk American lives would make the US think more than twice before they enter into a serious conflict with, e.g., Russia (which, as we know, has taken care to keep its stores of nuclear weapons). We have (c) experienced the US habit of inventing pretences for its actions (cf the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq), even of organizing incidents to justify its actions (the last officially acknowledged such incidence was the NATO-organized bomb in the railway station of Bologna, which killed ca 80 and wounded ca 200 in 1980; since then, we are still waiting for an official version of the events on sept. 11, 2001 which would be compatible with the laws of physics – while we are waiting, the events are eagerly being used as a justification for the war on terror …). Further, we know (since Edward Snowden) of the USA’s contempt for even its close NATO partners (cf the installation of bugs in EU offices and the obvious pressure on Italy, Spain, Portugal and France to block the possible escape of Snowden). Could we then assume, altogether, that joining NATO would, for Finland, mean political pressure to feed the US military complex, while the protection against hostile invasion would still be very doubtful …
If Finland does feel exposed and in need of friends who are willing to help in the coutry’s defence, the wisest course might be to develop the military cooperation with the other Nordic and the Baltic countries, and to develop at the same its neighbourly relations with Russia. The resulting situation could, ideally, be that an attack on any Nordic country might become so expensive as to deter possible invaders, while the Nordic countries at the same would not either represent any invitation for invaders for the simple reason that whatever little one might want to get from them could more easily and cheaply be got by neighbourly exchange.