5 ms·

The argument is not that the US is literally paying for country X's military. It's that counties benefit from being under the US's umbrella (such as through NAT

The argument is not that the US is literally paying for country X's military. It's that counties benefit from being under the US's umbrella (such as through NATO), and thus do not spend as much as they would if the US had a much smaller military. This has been a major talking point of the current president [0]. The more nuanced question is if the resulting power + influence is worth the cost for the US. [0]: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/03/nato-spending-2017.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/03/nato-spending-2017.html

hevi_jos 8y ago
You use the words "benefit" an "umbrella" that are actually euphemisms for the military occupation of defeated countries after WWII. A country does not benefit having another country occupying their land. Germany is the fourth manufacturer of weapons of the world, they do not need to be defended or protected like the world "umbrella" implies, they can do it on their own. If the Germans-Europeans had to pay for all the cost involved in the occupation there will be no reason to have the US army on Europe's land.
iscrewyou 8y ago
I understand that. We don’t pay for anyone’s military but ours. If our spending in our alliances is high, and there’s a way to bring the cost down, we should be doing it. But that’s not what OP said. He/she is speaking in absolutes: “Our tax dollars pay for more of their military than they do...” it helps no one and I wanted to call them out on their lie.
apexalpha 8y ago
Your source _completely_ glances over the fact that the EU's total budget is spend on defending Europe while the US budget is not only for protecting itself and NATO but also Korea, Japan, Philippines and many more for a total of some 700(!!!) foreign military bases. To then simply conclude that the US spends '70% of NATO defense spending' is incorrect since you inflate it with cost for defending a lot of territories outside of NATOs scope. Of course the US pays more in total, but the EU doesn't have 700 military bases outside of the EU.
- jki275 8y ago
  We don't have any bases in PI, and Japan pays for the bases we have there. I'm not sure about Korea. Very different situation than Europe.
  - mrunkel 8y ago
    And Germany pays for the bases there. It's not so different. The US puts the military where it wants to because it serves the US's interest. Don't believe for a second that it's to "protect Europe."
    - jki275 8y ago
      Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the concept of NATO. We spend all the money on defense and we put bases all over the world to protect the countries they are in. Does this serve US interests? Unquestionably. That doesn't invalidate my statement.
      - mrunkel 8y ago
        Yeah. I'm familiar. NATO is a joint treaty that obligates all members to come to the defense of other members. It was formed post world war II at the behest of the USA in order to combat political influence from the USSR in Europe. The USA doesn't fund NATO. Funding for NATO comes from all member organizations. All member organizations provide troops and materiel for joint operations. The US spends "all the money on defense" because it's a fantastic government jobs program for mostly white folks. The US has bases around the world to influence local politics. The idea that it's to protect those countries is simplistic at best.
        jki275 8y ago
        There are only five of the 29 member states of NATO that meet the NATO requirement for defense spending. Germany isn't one of them. The US spends nearly double the requirement, which in actual numbers works out to the majority of the funding anyway (72%). The next three countries combined get to 20%, that's UK, France, and Germany. The NATO direct budget is paid 22% by the US, 14% by Germany, 10% by the UK. The rest of the contributions are all less than 10% of the budget. So yes, the US does fund NATO, both with direct and indirect costs. The EU can afford to not spend money on their defense because we exist, and because we base our assets there. Influencing local politics is not the primary reason for having bases located remotely, in many cases it doesn't even happen. The idea that we put them there to "influence local politics" is actually the simplistic explanation that really doesn't begin to describe how the world works. The US presence in Germany has nothing to do with influencing anything in Germany, the US presence in Korea has nothing to do with influencing Korea, the US presence in Spain has nothing to do with influencing Spain, etc.

hevi_jos 8y ago

You use the words "benefit" an "umbrella" that are actually euphemisms for the military occupation of defeated countries after WWII. A country does not benefit having another country occupying their land. Germany is the fourth manufacturer of weapons of the world, they do not need to be defended or protected like the world "umbrella" implies, they can do it on their own. If the Germans-Europeans had to pay for all the cost involved in the occupation there will be no reason to have the US army on Europe's land.

iscrewyou 8y ago

I understand that. We don’t pay for anyone’s military but ours. If our spending in our alliances is high, and there’s a way to bring the cost down, we should be doing it. But that’s not what OP said. He/she is speaking in absolutes: “Our tax dollars pay for more of their military than they do...” it helps no one and I wanted to call them out on their lie.

apexalpha 8y ago

Your source _completely_ glances over the fact that the EU's total budget is spend on defending Europe while the US budget is not only for protecting itself and NATO but also Korea, Japan, Philippines and many more for a total of some 700(!!!) foreign military bases. To then simply conclude that the US spends '70% of NATO defense spending' is incorrect since you inflate it with cost for defending a lot of territories outside of NATOs scope. Of course the US pays more in total, but the EU doesn't have 700 military bases outside of the EU.

jki275 8y ago
We don't have any bases in PI, and Japan pays for the bases we have there. I'm not sure about Korea. Very different situation than Europe.
- mrunkel 8y ago
  And Germany pays for the bases there. It's not so different. The US puts the military where it wants to because it serves the US's interest. Don't believe for a second that it's to "protect Europe."
  - jki275 8y ago
    Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the concept of NATO. We spend all the money on defense and we put bases all over the world to protect the countries they are in. Does this serve US interests? Unquestionably. That doesn't invalidate my statement.
    - mrunkel 8y ago
      Yeah. I'm familiar. NATO is a joint treaty that obligates all members to come to the defense of other members. It was formed post world war II at the behest of the USA in order to combat political influence from the USSR in Europe. The USA doesn't fund NATO. Funding for NATO comes from all member organizations. All member organizations provide troops and materiel for joint operations. The US spends "all the money on defense" because it's a fantastic government jobs program for mostly white folks. The US has bases around the world to influence local politics. The idea that it's to protect those countries is simplistic at best.
      - jki275 8y ago
        There are only five of the 29 member states of NATO that meet the NATO requirement for defense spending. Germany isn't one of them. The US spends nearly double the requirement, which in actual numbers works out to the majority of the funding anyway (72%). The next three countries combined get to 20%, that's UK, France, and Germany. The NATO direct budget is paid 22% by the US, 14% by Germany, 10% by the UK. The rest of the contributions are all less than 10% of the budget. So yes, the US does fund NATO, both with direct and indirect costs. The EU can afford to not spend money on their defense because we exist, and because we base our assets there. Influencing local politics is not the primary reason for having bases located remotely, in many cases it doesn't even happen. The idea that we put them there to "influence local politics" is actually the simplistic explanation that really doesn't begin to describe how the world works. The US presence in Germany has nothing to do with influencing anything in Germany, the US presence in Korea has nothing to do with influencing Korea, the US presence in Spain has nothing to do with influencing Spain, etc.