3 ms·

Yes, the fact that we can take for granted some things that you don't was exactly my point. Here, when you think about getting seriously sick, what most people

Yes, the fact that we can take for granted some things that you don't was exactly my point. Here, when you think about getting seriously sick, what most people think about is the loss of health - the loss of money comes very far behind. Regarding military spending, I'm surely grateful of NATO - especially during the cold war - but I think you're severely underestimating European defense capabilities and, most importantly, needs. Let's say that for an act of magic NATO went away tomorrow and a EU-only army or alliance had to be created to replace it, and let's say we didn't even increase military spending from the current level. Who would/could attack such EU alliance? The only neighboring power that would have the resources to even think about it is Russia, but then again - with current spending and capabilities - Putin would have exactly zero chances of successfully invading the EU. Just look at the size of our combined armies and the difference in economic potential (in case of a prolonged war). This, even without even counting that France (here I'm making the UK magically disappear as an ally too) has enough nukes to make such an invasion an act of folly, and that several other EU countries could easily develop nuclear capabilities if required. Of course you're free to disagree, but my very strong impression - as someone who also has some family in the US - is that this "we can't have good, affordable health care because of NATO" is just a very convenient way for your politicians to put the blame elsewhere. The US is so rich that it could easily give EU-level healthcare at EU costs to everybody, but then doctors, insurance companies, big pharma and everybody related would need to be less rich, and all other high-income people should pay higher - and not even so much higher at that - taxes, as it happens in the EU. You could do that even without cutting military spending which, by the way, is mostly geared towards the ability to project US power overseas wherever and whenever it's needed, not to protect Europe from Russia. I don't have the numbers readily available, but I'm pretty sure that your 11 carrier strike group cost much, much more than all your troops stationed in Europe.

throwanem 9y ago
Well, hell. I've been arguing against NATO for years, for much the same reason as I've tended to argue against the scale of our military expenditures in general - namely, that it's an obsolete waste of money better spent elsewhere. You're right about the cost of our carrier groups - what's worse is that, in any war with a serious opponent, they're just going to be gone, because they have no meaningful defense against mass attack with supersonic cruise missiles. That's why I want to see them scrapped in favor of something cheaper and more defensible - that, and as a means of helping restrain the tendency toward ultimately counterproductive military adventure that's been so much a feature of US foreign policy, regardless of who happens to be in power at any given moment, for a century or more. And quite aside from the fact that I actually do believe these are worthwhile ends, this argument is much easier to make go, with people who aren't in any sense progressive, than the one where we look out for people because it's the virtuous and compassionate thing to do, and hang the tax rate increase and medical-sector profit cuts. (Does this sound hypocritical of me? Perhaps it does. On the other hand, if I have to choose between some notion of my own personal ideological purity on the one hand, and on the other acting in ways which make more likely a state of affairs in which poor kids don't die of toothache and one mishap doesn't render entire families destitute...) Unfortunately, because I've tended to avoid the news lately, I had not previously been aware that Trump's lately been arguing that NATO is obsolete and overpriced as well. This makes it an impropitious time to advance the same argument myself - even if the damned Johnny-come-lately happens to benefit at this moment from the broken-clock principle, it's hardly wise to associate oneself too closely with whatever he happens to be saying, whether by accident or otherwise. I'll have to keep a closer eye on that in future.
- danmaz74 9y ago
  I see your point. Anyway, I don't think that NATO by itself adds a significant amount of expenses on top of the national, "non-NATO" military expense of the participants. Regarding Trump, IIRC he already changed his mind about NATO being obsolete, the point now is "just" that the allies should spend more.

throwanem 9y ago

Well, hell. I've been arguing against NATO for years, for much the same reason as I've tended to argue against the scale of our military expenditures in general - namely, that it's an obsolete waste of money better spent elsewhere. You're right about the cost of our carrier groups - what's worse is that, in any war with a serious opponent, they're just going to be gone, because they have no meaningful defense against mass attack with supersonic cruise missiles. That's why I want to see them scrapped in favor of something cheaper and more defensible - that, and as a means of helping restrain the tendency toward ultimately counterproductive military adventure that's been so much a feature of US foreign policy, regardless of who happens to be in power at any given moment, for a century or more. And quite aside from the fact that I actually do believe these are worthwhile ends, this argument is much easier to make go, with people who aren't in any sense progressive, than the one where we look out for people because it's the virtuous and compassionate thing to do, and hang the tax rate increase and medical-sector profit cuts. (Does this sound hypocritical of me? Perhaps it does. On the other hand, if I have to choose between some notion of my own personal ideological purity on the one hand, and on the other acting in ways which make more likely a state of affairs in which poor kids don't die of toothache and one mishap doesn't render entire families destitute...) Unfortunately, because I've tended to avoid the news lately, I had not previously been aware that Trump's lately been arguing that NATO is obsolete and overpriced as well. This makes it an impropitious time to advance the same argument myself - even if the damned Johnny-come-lately happens to benefit at this moment from the broken-clock principle, it's hardly wise to associate oneself too closely with whatever he happens to be saying, whether by accident or otherwise. I'll have to keep a closer eye on that in future.

danmaz74 9y ago
I see your point. Anyway, I don't think that NATO by itself adds a significant amount of expenses on top of the national, "non-NATO" military expense of the participants. Regarding Trump, IIRC he already changed his mind about NATO being obsolete, the point now is "just" that the allies should spend more.