Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
timschochet

NATO

259 posts in this topic

Oh and guys you have to remember I am from the make love not war generation.  So that influences a lot of my feelings.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, boots11234 said:

Someone is wrong. Forbes is reporting we account for 72% of the budget https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/07/10/defense-expenditure-of-nato-members-visualized-infographic/amp/

 

if this is correct then yes they need to pull more of the weight. 

Where do you see that 72% figure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, rustycolts said:

Tim it is not really extremist.  Read the link I posted from the Washington Post. They were opinions from leaders of both parties in the 80s.  I am not saying abandon NATO completely but we spend too much more than our share.  It seems one of the biggest gripes people have is military spending.  Well lets solve that by stop using our Military so much.  How about cutting our spending ratio for NATO to 12% that would save us some money.  Maybe we could spend it on social needs or infrastructure.

It's hard to break out what specifically in our defense budget is solely NATO related.  Soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines rotate stations and are subject to transfer anywhere based on need, so simply saying the guys stationed in Germany are a NATO cost isn't quite right.

We have carriers that are protecting the Pacific and projecting power into the middle east so they aren't quite NATO costs, but they could be tasked to get into range of a NATO ally if necessary.

Beyond that though, let's say we pull back from NATO... we aren't shrinking the amount of men we have in paid military jobs.  It's not like we bring them home and then discharge them. Reducing NATO spending, if you can define it to start, does not automatically decrease defense spending.

If we want to keep the powerful first world military we have, NATO is a superior mechanism to keep a strategic foothold in what has been mankind's most war torn land masses without actually being in the middle of constant conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, rustycolts said:

Oh and guys you have to remember I am from the make love not war generation.  So that influences a lot of my feelings.

All good. I'd rather have "our guys home," too and tell everyone to take care of themselves. Europe and Asia have never been able to though.

NATO makes us a ton of money for very little investment and hard cost, and saves us from future projected increases that we can't sustain for any great period. 

Let's put it this way; who do we really thing benefits more from everything that NATO provides, both military and economic.... us with our almost 4% of GDP spending with less than half of that in Europe, or the Netherlands that only spends 1.2% of its GDP? Honestly, and realistically, who is getting the better deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Yankee23Fan said:

All good. I'd rather have "our guys home," too and tell everyone to take care of themselves. Europe and Asia have never been able to though.

NATO makes us a ton of money for very little investment and hard cost, and saves us from future projected increases that we can't sustain for any great period. 

Let's put it this way; who do we really thing benefits more from everything that NATO provides, both military and economic.... us with our almost 4% of GDP spending with less than half of that in Europe, or the Netherlands that only spends 1.2% of its GDP? Honestly, and realistically, who is getting the better deal?

The US could spend half if what it spends today and still have money to spend as today on NATO.

What would be lost would be the ability to project force over multiple theatres and possibly/probably flexibility in type of response

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Where do you see that 72% figure?

Total amount spent. Doing the math 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, boots11234 said:

Total amount spent. Doing the math 

You’re looking at the wrong number and so did Trump. That’s the US’s total defense spending, not our spending on NATO. The US is 24% of the NATO budget.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, msommer said:

The US could spend half if what it spends today and still have money to spend as today on NATO.

What would be lost would be the ability to project force over multiple theatres and possibly/probably flexibility in type of response

That's the military loss from our side, though, not the total loss.  Any significant reduction of U.S. military influence in Europe will destabilize our allies to some measureable extent.  I'm not saying it would break down the ties that bind Europe and devolve into anarchy, but there is a stabilizing influence over the region with us there.  Reduce that and there is a countermovement.  

It could certainly force European countries to spend more on their own defense.  In doing that, though, they would likely slow production on other fronts or increase taxes even more thereby changing the economic base of their working class.  Both things, taken to their ends, always end the same way for Europe and that ending means we have to get back involved to protect our own economic interests alone.  We have close a trillion dollars in trade with that continent annually and any significant reduction in that would spell economic chaos here.

We don't spend enough time contemplating the economics of national security.  It's a very real thing.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, boots11234 said:
17 hours ago, rustycolts said:

We now fund 22% of NATO costs.  I may be wrong but I would guess that percentage is less than what we spent during the cold war.

This argument has been going on for a long time.  This is a real interesting article from back in the 80s describing how folks felt then.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/04/25/nato-fears-us-cost-cutting/b0a4c303-09f8-43a5-9f49-b52da7f54f49/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0e2b70de5d6a

Someone is wrong. Forbes is reporting we account for 72% of the budget https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/07/10/defense-expenditure-of-nato-members-visualized-infographic/amp/

 

if this is correct then yes they need to pull more of the weight. 

ETA:  Nevermind...others pointed it out.

Edited by The Commish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, rustycolts said:

Guys the notion that the other countries of the NATO alliance have been taking advantage of our generosity is nothing new.  The argument has been going on for decades.  Prominent members of the left and right have stated this for years.  The argument is probably right.  Out of the 29 members we pay 22% of the budget.  Seems a little one sided to me.

I did a quick google and found that the NATO countries have a total populatio of about 880 million people, The United States population is about is about 325 million. What % should we pay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Insomniac said:

I did a quick google and found that the NATO countries have a total populatio of about 880 million people, The United States population is about is about 325 million. What % should we pay?

I guess if we are going by population then we should pay about 37% of NATOs budget.  Should we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rustycolts said:

I guess if we are going by population then we should pay about 37% of NATOs budget.  Should we?

Overall I'd rather pay less than what we do but we should spend what's needed to maintain the alliance.. The bigger consideration is what value are we getting out of this. 

At the end of WWII the US became the preeminent world power and has maintained that for 70 years with NATO playing a large part by containing the USSR and keeping the peace in Western Europe. It's very important part of the US long term strategy of remaining the leading power. It's certainly possible that China becomes the dominant power in the future no matter what we do but the longer that's delayed the better. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2018 at 8:40 PM, boots11234 said:

Have these other countries agreed to the 2% goal?  If so they should pay 2%. 

NO ONE IS PAYING.  This is what they are supposed to spend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Teyana said:

I don’t understand the title of this opinion piece relative to the contents within?  The title seems to suggest Trump got something Obama merely asked for but never received.  The article itself mentions no new pledges that I can see, just a joint reaffirmation (originally secured by Obama 4 years ago) of the pledged increase in military spending by the NATO countries.  The rest of the article was not much of a high-five to Trump, either.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Teyana said:
Quote

Mr. Obama persuaded NATO leaders to increase their military spending at a meeting in Wales in 2014, after a newly aggressive Russia invaded Ukraine.

:shrug:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sho nuff said:

Facts and logic...

Water on a goose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.