4 ms·

I'm not a Trump fan at all, but one of his major complaints was that Europe isn't allocating enough money to defence. Which is quite a reasonable thing to deman

by jeswin 5y ago

I'm not a Trump fan at all, but one of his major complaints was that Europe isn't allocating enough money to defence. Which is quite a reasonable thing to demand. Primary responsibility to defend Europe should lie with Europe. The ability to defend oneself is just as important as climate. One has wide public support, the other is taken for granted (thanks to Nato).

swader999 5y ago
A lot of this is tied to non proliferation. We'll carry the buck if you don't aquire nukes. So it's not as simple as who pays how much.
- HideousKojima 5y ago
  NATO members have always been supposed to spend at least 2% of GDP on military, other than the US and I think the UK literally no one was.
  - unityByFreedom 5y ago
    I believe that was a goal for a future date that has not yet arrived. Trump complained about it, but it wasn't due yet and was going to happen anyway. So it can look like he made it happen. He's full of cons.
    - HideousKojima 5y ago
      The 2% commitment was originally agreed to in 2006. After member nations continued to fail to spend enough, in 2014 it was a set as a goal to increase towards that goal year over year until 2024: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm#:~:text=The%202%25%20defence%20investment%20guideline,ensure%20the%20Alliance's%20military%20readiness https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm#:~:text=.... Several countries hadn't made real any moves towards reaching that goal, and even now are still falling far short (see page 3): https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/10/pdf/pr-2020-104-en.pdf https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/10/p...
  - mrep 5y ago
    France does. Not surprising though, maintaining nukes and nuclear missile submarines ain't cheap.
cable2600 5y ago
The reason why the EU can afford social programs is because the USA and NATO provide them with military defense so it doesn't come out of their military budgets. After Ukraine gets invaded they might want to build up their military again. Welcome to World War 3. watch the FOSSIL fuel prices, ouch!

by jeswin 5y ago

swader999 5y ago

A lot of this is tied to non proliferation. We'll carry the buck if you don't aquire nukes. So it's not as simple as who pays how much.

HideousKojima 5y ago
NATO members have always been supposed to spend at least 2% of GDP on military, other than the US and I think the UK literally no one was.
- unityByFreedom 5y ago
  I believe that was a goal for a future date that has not yet arrived. Trump complained about it, but it wasn't due yet and was going to happen anyway. So it can look like he made it happen. He's full of cons.
  - HideousKojima 5y ago
    The 2% commitment was originally agreed to in 2006. After member nations continued to fail to spend enough, in 2014 it was a set as a goal to increase towards that goal year over year until 2024: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm#:~:text=The%202%25%20defence%20investment%20guideline,ensure%20the%20Alliance's%20military%20readiness https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm#:~:text=.... Several countries hadn't made real any moves towards reaching that goal, and even now are still falling far short (see page 3): https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/10/pdf/pr-2020-104-en.pdf https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/10/p...
- mrep 5y ago
  France does. Not surprising though, maintaining nukes and nuclear missile submarines ain't cheap.

cable2600 5y ago

The reason why the EU can afford social programs is because the USA and NATO provide them with military defense so it doesn't come out of their military budgets. After Ukraine gets invaded they might want to build up their military again. Welcome to World War 3. watch the FOSSIL fuel prices, ouch!