3 ms·

>We share our resources so that... our air space protected from Russian invasion The US subsidizing more than 70% of NATO probably helps a bit there.

lifeisstillgood 8y ago
making us more of a socialist civilisation .. ?
- EpicEng 8y ago
  Yes. Things may look quite a bit different without ~700B in US NATO funding.
  - lifeisstillgood 8y ago
    Normally I would not do this but it's worth checking this as it has seemed a big contentious issue and I wanted to get a view So USA total expenditure on defence is around the 700bn mark - at about 4% GDP roughly double the major EU countries at the 2% Nato recommended mark. The UK is listed below at 50bn (~2%) but I happen to know the UK Blue Book has 95 Bn - so even basic accounting is a difficult issue these days... However this is not the same as the Nato budget or "contributions" - the NATO countries contribute very little to NATO specifically (a building in Brussels etc). An aircraft carrier belonging to the US Navy still belongs to the US Navy whether it's on NATO exercises or on patrol by Hawaii. I think Trump makes a fair point saying those that are not spending 2% on defence should increase the defence expenditure as they agreed - but equally that is mostly considered an internal political decision. Having international agreements that get in the way of internal politics is ... well Brexit, NAFTA, most wars ... Interesting to do a little research and get an understanding of the problem - thank you for the prompting - but I think the USA is not going to stop spending 700bn - the issue is will they step away from a mutual defence pact? In the end I can still be a well armed socialist ;-) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_militar... https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2017_06/20170629_170629-pr2017-111-en.pdf#page=7&zoom=auto,-274,826 https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2017_... https://www.factcheck.org/2017/12/distorted-nato-funding-figure/ https://www.factcheck.org/2017/12/distorted-nato-funding-fig... (little disappointed by fact check article quality here)
    - EpicEng 8y ago
      >However this is not the same as the Nato budget or "contributions" - the NATO countries contribute very little to NATO specifically (a building in Brussels etc). An aircraft carrier belonging to the US Navy still belongs to the US Navy whether it's on NATO exercises or on patrol by Hawaii. Sure, but that carrier costs a lot of money to operate. If we're doing so in accordance with a NATO treaty/policy/request then it's still an expense. Of course the US doesn't do this for completely altruistic reasons. We obviously have a vested interest in the stability of western Europe and the safety of our allies. That does not change the fact that the US contributes the vast majority of resources used to defend NATO allies and that things in that region would look quite a bit different if e.g. we decided to massively scale back. It is complicated however and I don't pretend to have a high level of understanding on all of the details. There's a lot I could learn here.
      - lifeisstillgood 8y ago
        >>> t the US contributes the vast majority of resources used to defend NATO allies ... That seems unlikely ... i mean all the armies of the non-US nation's are by definition based in Europe. >>> things in the region would look different absolutely- but there is a world of difference between sabre rattling in order to get changed spending commitments and some positive domestic press and a truly isolationist foreign affairs policy (Yes the US will look East more than West for the future, and that will mean scaling back. But Russia remains belligerent.)

lifeisstillgood 8y ago

making us more of a socialist civilisation .. ?

EpicEng 8y ago
Yes. Things may look quite a bit different without ~700B in US NATO funding.
- lifeisstillgood 8y ago
  Normally I would not do this but it's worth checking this as it has seemed a big contentious issue and I wanted to get a view So USA total expenditure on defence is around the 700bn mark - at about 4% GDP roughly double the major EU countries at the 2% Nato recommended mark. The UK is listed below at 50bn (~2%) but I happen to know the UK Blue Book has 95 Bn - so even basic accounting is a difficult issue these days... However this is not the same as the Nato budget or "contributions" - the NATO countries contribute very little to NATO specifically (a building in Brussels etc). An aircraft carrier belonging to the US Navy still belongs to the US Navy whether it's on NATO exercises or on patrol by Hawaii. I think Trump makes a fair point saying those that are not spending 2% on defence should increase the defence expenditure as they agreed - but equally that is mostly considered an internal political decision. Having international agreements that get in the way of internal politics is ... well Brexit, NAFTA, most wars ... Interesting to do a little research and get an understanding of the problem - thank you for the prompting - but I think the USA is not going to stop spending 700bn - the issue is will they step away from a mutual defence pact? In the end I can still be a well armed socialist ;-) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_militar... https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2017_06/20170629_170629-pr2017-111-en.pdf#page=7&zoom=auto,-274,826 https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2017_... https://www.factcheck.org/2017/12/distorted-nato-funding-figure/ https://www.factcheck.org/2017/12/distorted-nato-funding-fig... (little disappointed by fact check article quality here)
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    >However this is not the same as the Nato budget or "contributions" - the NATO countries contribute very little to NATO specifically (a building in Brussels etc). An aircraft carrier belonging to the US Navy still belongs to the US Navy whether it's on NATO exercises or on patrol by Hawaii. Sure, but that carrier costs a lot of money to operate. If we're doing so in accordance with a NATO treaty/policy/request then it's still an expense. Of course the US doesn't do this for completely altruistic reasons. We obviously have a vested interest in the stability of western Europe and the safety of our allies. That does not change the fact that the US contributes the vast majority of resources used to defend NATO allies and that things in that region would look quite a bit different if e.g. we decided to massively scale back. It is complicated however and I don't pretend to have a high level of understanding on all of the details. There's a lot I could learn here.
    - lifeisstillgood 8y ago
      >>> t the US contributes the vast majority of resources used to defend NATO allies ... That seems unlikely ... i mean all the armies of the non-US nation's are by definition based in Europe. >>> things in the region would look different absolutely- but there is a world of difference between sabre rattling in order to get changed spending commitments and some positive domestic press and a truly isolationist foreign affairs policy (Yes the US will look East more than West for the future, and that will mean scaling back. But Russia remains belligerent.)