3 ms·
>World military spending has doubled since 2000. It is approaching 2 trillion US dollars per year, and is increasing in all regions of the world (*). giving th
by trhway 5y ago
>World military spending has doubled since 2000. It is approaching 2 trillion US dollars per year, and is increasing in all regions of the world (*).
giving that 1/3rd is US, it means that US is supposed to fund the 1/3rd of the new fund. Without any comments on the merits of that specific arrangement, i think that just wouldn't fly with US voters.
In general such proposals are built on the "marketing law of big numbers" like a pitch to sell something to China - "even if our market is only 0.1% that immediately makes for 1.5M customers!"
- InTheArena 5y agoThe USA funds 22% of the UN anyways. That's not abnormal. We also fund a order of magnitude more of NATO (once you include the actual costs of soldiers, infrastructure, logistics, etc) then any other participant. But I agree with the point - looking at the "signatories" - this seems to be mostly tax Americans more and give it to the UN, because Europeans think so.
- arcticbull 5y agoAnd that is in America's self-interest.
- jldugger 5y agoThen it would be even more in America's interest if EU citizens participated equally.
- arcticbull 5y agoNot really, no. Their monetary contributions allow them outsized influence. It was originally, intentionally, set up this way after the war. It would be in EU citizens interests to participate equally.