Hum did you bother to read why?
"The Netherlands deputy U.N. ambassador Lise Gregoire-Van-Haaren told delegates her country couldn't vote for a treaty that went against its NATO obligations, had inadequate verification provisions or that undermined the NPT - and "this draft does not meet our criteria."
So they were honoring their NATO obligations... and that's a bad thing?
Correct, we are hosting a number of nuclear warheads for the USA on our military airfields (I won't disclose where, but most of us in the Netherlands all know where). You know, closer to the potential target, means quicker response times to protect the USA.
What Alan's joke also suggests, is the total ignorance about what the NATO partners are doing to protect American interests. Hence the brainless remarks about the USA pulling back support if the European partners do not spend enough (or waste equal amounts on defense as the USA does).
We are not allowed to deploy them ourselves, so they offer no deterrent protection to us (besides the Article 5 pledge that an attack on Any NATO member state is an attack on All), but only benefit the USA as a now
unreliable partner for us, despite shared objectives.
Since we stock them on our soil, we cannot sign an agreement that prohibits us from stationing nuclear weapons on our soil.
Cheers,
Bart