3 ms·

Well, all members of NATO have agreed to spend at least 2% of their GDP on military defense - the idea being mutual defense spending based on your ability to sp

by Alupis 6y ago

Well, all members of NATO have agreed to spend at least 2% of their GDP on military defense - the idea being mutual defense spending based on your ability to spend the money. Unfortunately, many NATO countries are currently spending far less than 2% (as you showed above)... and the US is spending far more than 2%, in part, to make up for the shortfall (ie, why we have tens of thousands of troops stationed in Europe, etc).

75675446875444 6y ago
I don't think perfectly fair contributions are that relevant honestly because the US constitutes roughly 2/3rds of total spending contribution towards NATO and that's before acknowledging the value of their military assets like their Navy, Airforce, and Navy (but in the sky). When discussing America's contributions to the world and the benefits of its military there's no reason to not include NATO's role in maintaining regional stability as a US military accomplishment. Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spending-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spen...
Retric 6y ago
Quite reasonably the question arises, defense vs what? Even without the US, NATO is still extremely well protected with a giant and extremely advanced military. They even have a strong Nuclear deterrent. Really the US is the only roughly equivalent military force on the planet.
- onepointsixC 6y ago
  This is an extremely over confident view of NATO and the US. In wargames NATO loses the Baltic states to Russia [1]. And that's WITH US forces. And lets not bring up nukes, no EU member is willing to go nuclear over Tallinn. [1]: https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/03/if-russia-started-a-war-in-the-baltics-nato-would-lose-quickly/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/03/if-russia-started-a-war...
  - Retric 6y ago
    That’s a massive misunderstanding of warfare. The complaint is over the deployment of forces not the total quantity of such forces. Any nation in history will lose a single battle if their enemies concentrate on a single point and their defending a huge area. However, such a loss represents no significant reduction in fighting forces and is therefore not militarily meaningful. Further a massive defensive concentration of forces into a small area just means the actual attack takes place somewhere else. In the end winning requires armies to face armies or supplies to run out over long periods.
  - PhantomGremlin 6y ago
    In wargames NATO loses the Baltic states to Russia That's a major change. During the Cold War, absent tactical nukes, NATO loses continental Europe to the Warsaw Pact.

by Alupis 6y ago

75675446875444 6y ago

I don't think perfectly fair contributions are that relevant honestly because the US constitutes roughly 2/3rds of total spending contribution towards NATO and that's before acknowledging the value of their military assets like their Navy, Airforce, and Navy (but in the sky). When discussing America's contributions to the world and the benefits of its military there's no reason to not include NATO's role in maintaining regional stability as a US military accomplishment. Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spending-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spen...

Retric 6y ago

Quite reasonably the question arises, defense vs what? Even without the US, NATO is still extremely well protected with a giant and extremely advanced military. They even have a strong Nuclear deterrent. Really the US is the only roughly equivalent military force on the planet.

onepointsixC 6y ago
This is an extremely over confident view of NATO and the US. In wargames NATO loses the Baltic states to Russia [1]. And that's WITH US forces. And lets not bring up nukes, no EU member is willing to go nuclear over Tallinn. [1]: https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/03/if-russia-started-a-war-in-the-baltics-nato-would-lose-quickly/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/03/if-russia-started-a-war...
- Retric 6y ago
  That’s a massive misunderstanding of warfare. The complaint is over the deployment of forces not the total quantity of such forces. Any nation in history will lose a single battle if their enemies concentrate on a single point and their defending a huge area. However, such a loss represents no significant reduction in fighting forces and is therefore not militarily meaningful. Further a massive defensive concentration of forces into a small area just means the actual attack takes place somewhere else. In the end winning requires armies to face armies or supplies to run out over long periods.
- PhantomGremlin 6y ago
  In wargames NATO loses the Baltic states to Russia That's a major change. During the Cold War, absent tactical nukes, NATO loses continental Europe to the Warsaw Pact.