4 ms·
Guy in charge of NATO (who is dutch I think) recently said EU would need to move to spending 10% GDP to plausibly not need the us military. So this is great an
by buckle8017 8mo ago
Guy in charge of NATO (who is dutch I think) recently said EU would need to move to spending 10% GDP to plausibly not need the us military.
So this is great and all but it's too little too late.
- isodev 8mo agoWhat Mark Rutte has been saying recently is mostly buzzwords for peach daddy's ears (and has been criticises by EU members as it misrepresents our current goals and motivations).
- bluebarbet 8mo agoThe declared aim of Nato sec-gen is 5%. The EU and USA have similar total GDP measured by PPP, and USA spends 3.4%. So 10% would be wildly excessive by any measure. In addition the EU has three times the population of the unstated enemy, Russia. But it's true that this initiative is happening too late.
- etyhhgfff 8mo agoBetter late than never. They might thank you in 20 years.
- kyboren 8mo ago> USA spends 3.4%. So 10% would be wildly excessive by any measure I see this argument a lot, and I think it's totally bunk. The point of military spending isn't to sacrifice a certain number of goats at the altar to ensure the gods' favor, it's to acquire the means to enforce a nation's interests. In our highly industrial age, that means all sorts of ships, submarines, aircraft, launchers and spacecraft, armed and armored vehicles, autonomous {air, ground, sea, undersea} platforms, all sorts of munitions, deep magazines, production lines, domestic supply chains, etc. etc. etc. The US has spent 3% - 5% of its GDP on its military since 1990, and the US still enjoys the benefits of much of that accumulated spending. Five Nimitz-class aircraft carriers were built even before 1990, when the US was spending 5% - 7% of its GDP on its military. The US still operates B-52Hs, which were built in the 1960's. Even beyond ships and airframes, continued funding of programs and capabilities sustains a sort of inertia of know-how and industrial capability that, once stopped, is difficult and costly to get going again. Just comparing military spending at a snapshot in time isn't a good way to compare military capabilities and potential. If European nations wish to replace what the US brings to the table, it's going to take a crash rearmament program and very high military spending (easily 10%+ of GDP) for a decade or more. And also a unified command structure, unified procurement, and ultimately probably proper federalization. All of which are, unfortunately, pipe dreams.
- buckle8017 8mo agoEuropeans consistently underestimate the scale of the subsidy that is the us military. We used to get things in return, like preferential trade agreements. Haven't gotten those since the early 90s. Free lunch is over, pay up.
- moi2388 8mo agoHe is indeed Dutch. He is also a known liar. Take everything he says with a giant grain of salt, and then some. Then again, in the current system it makes sense, since there is no EU army, leading to huge overhead for each country.
- misja111 8mo agoThat's nonsense. The main security threat for the EU is Russia, a state with a GDP roughly equal to Italy's. We only need to keep up our military spending with that.