> “Gaps” in the Bundeswehr is an understatement. In 1989, the West German government spent 2.7 percent of GDP on defense, but by 2000 spending had dropped to 1.

> “Gaps” in the Bundeswehr is an understatement. In 1989, the West German government spent 2.7 percent of GDP on defense, but by 2000 spending had dropped to 1.4 percent One man's gap is another's peace dividend. 0% should be the standard to judge against, and the unfortunate necessity to go above that shouldn't be mistaken for anything but a giant drain of productivity that could be spent on almost anything else with better results. I also don't get how military spending is indexed to GDP. Surely what matters first is the actual power of an alliance's militaries compared to realistic threats. Only then could GDP be a useful yardstick to distribute the burdens among the members of that alliance. In the specific case, it's a completely rational decision to lower investments in Europe considering the US continues to fund its military at levels that can only be explained by some sort of chauvinist fascination with guns, bombs, and golden toilet seats. It's even beneficial for the US if Europe instead invests in soft-power resources, something that has actually happened since 1990.