NATO spending

[crispy]

Theres been a lot of talk about Trump wanting the rest of the NATO countries to spend 2 % of GDP on military, and he's not the first to talk about it. What I don't get is why? Its not like the US will then cut back on their spending instead, so it only increases the money the rest of the world wastes on military. As it stands now NATO is by far the greatest military power in the world, so why make it even bigger? Whats the point?

 

[Sarpedon]

The United States has defense commitments all around the world, and as they intensify, we are looking to spend less in Europe.

I think it would be possible for the europeans to spend less on their militaries and still increase their security if they would cooperate better, perhaps with permanent troop deployments from interior countries to border countries. Belgium could park half its army in Latvia, for example. The USA has resisted the idea of a combined European army and navy for as long as NATO has been around, which I think is a mistake. True, the things like Brexit make such a thing more iffy, but it could reduce redundancy and increase security for smaller border countries. I believe that the USA didn't want to create a rival, an understandable, but I think shortsighted, policy.

Europe as it is has security challenges not because of a shortage of spending (though 2% isn't much) but because of lack of coordination and clear policy. In the absence of that, increased spending may be prudent, especially for border countries.

 

[laughing dog]

Theres been a lot of talk about Trump wanting the rest of the NATO countries to spend 2 % of GDP on military, and he's not the first to talk about it. What I don't get is why? Its not like the US will then cut back on their spending instead, so it only increases the money the rest of the world wastes on military. As it stands now NATO is by far the greatest military power in the world, so why make it even bigger? Whats the point?

The point is that each member should nominally contribute to the defensive capabilities of NATO by living up to their commitment of spending 2% of GDP on defense.

 

[Deepak]

The United States has defense commitments all around the world, and as they intensify, we are looking to spend less in Europe.

I think it would be possible for the europeans to spend less on their militaries and still increase their security if they would cooperate better, perhaps with permanent troop deployments from interior countries to border countries. Belgium could park half its army in Latvia, for example. The USA has resisted the idea of a combined European army and navy for as long as NATO has been around, which I think is a mistake. True, the things like Brexit make such a thing more iffy, but it could reduce redundancy and increase security for smaller border countries. I believe that the USA didn't want to create a rival, an understandable, but I think shortsighted, policy.

Europe as it is has security challenges not because of a shortage of spending (though 2% isn't much) but because of lack of coordination and clear policy. In the absence of that, increased spending may be prudent, especially for border countries.

The US wouldn't have entered into a mutual protection treaty like NATO if they were seriously afraid of Europe as a 'rival'. The framework for a united EU military has existed since inception, and the main impediment is internal disagreement as it would require unanimous agreement. It would also be another budget item to disagree about, and I think few countries in the EU would want to accede total control of their troops and militaries to Brussels.

That said, they do have standing-combined land and air corps comprised of soldiers from some member countries.

 

[crispy]

Theres been a lot of talk about Trump wanting the rest of the NATO countries to spend 2 % of GDP on military, and he's not the first to talk about it. What I don't get is why? Its not like the US will then cut back on their spending instead, so it only increases the money the rest of the world wastes on military. As it stands now NATO is by far the greatest military power in the world, so why make it even bigger? Whats the point?

The point is that each member should nominally contribute to the defensive capabilities of NATO by living up to their commitment of spending 2% of GDP on defense.

Yes, I know, but don't we currently spend an adequate amount? The 2 percent is just a number someone agreed on many years ago. Maybe 1 % is just fine?

 

[Deepak]

The point is that each member should nominally contribute to the defensive capabilities of NATO by living up to their commitment of spending 2% of GDP on defense.

Yes, I know, but don't we currently spend an adequate amount? The 2 percent is just a number someone agreed on many years ago. Maybe 1 % is just fine?

2% was agreed to so there would be equitable sharing of the burden of mutual defense, and because expenditure of the GDP is easily measurable. Perhaps 1% is fine for some countries, but not others - but certainly 0% becomes untenable when considering it's a mutual defense pact. Personally I'd prefer more complicated measures which actually take readiness and equity into consideration - but there needs to be mutual agreement here. I also think that any future metric should actually be binding, unlike the 2% goal.

 

[J842P]

Quite frankly, I see no good reason for the US to spend so much money on defending Europe.

 

[crispy]

Quite frankly, I see no good reason for the US to spend so much money on defending Europe.

Agreed, but do you think that the US will spend less money on military if they didn't?

 

[laughing dog]

The point is that each member should nominally contribute to the defensive capabilities of NATO by living up to their commitment of spending 2% of GDP on defense.

Yes, I know, but don't we currently spend an adequate amount? The 2 percent is just a number someone agreed on many years ago. Maybe 1 % is just fine?

Who is the "we"? While I am not a defense expert, my impression is that excluding the US, the NATO allies do not have an adequate military capability for defending themselves.

 

[ksen]

The point is that each member should nominally contribute to the defensive capabilities of NATO by living up to their commitment of spending 2% of GDP on defense.

Yes, I know, but don't we currently spend an adequate amount? The 2 percent is just a number someone agreed on many years ago. Maybe 1 % is just fine?

Either everyone is bound to meet their contractual obligations or no one is.

 

[crispy]

Yes, I know, but don't we currently spend an adequate amount? The 2 percent is just a number someone agreed on many years ago. Maybe 1 % is just fine?

Who is the "we"? While I am not a defense expert, my impression is that excluding the US, the NATO allies do not have an adequate military capability for defending themselves.

We, as in NATO. Don't we currently have adequate military power? I get the argument that some countries are spending considerably less than others, and that's not fair. But what does that actually matter? If the US don't have plans to spend less on military anyway, why does it matter? Sure lots of European countries could spend more, but whats the point, if NATO as a whole right now has enough military power?

Apart from it not being seen as fair, why would it matter, if we have the military power, and the US isn't going to cut back on spendings anyway?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I know, but don't we currently spend an adequate amount? The 2 percent is just a number someone agreed on many years ago. Maybe 1 % is just fine?

Either everyone is bound to meet their contractual obligations or no one is.

Well, actually its not an obligation, but more of a guideline.

 

[barbos]

Quite frankly, I see no good reason for the US to spend so much money on defending Europe.

But what about Putin?

 

[skepticalbip]

Quite frankly, I see no good reason for the US to spend so much money on defending Europe.

Agreed, but do you think that the US will spend less money on military if they didn't?

So you are saying that because the US is currently footing a large disproportionate share of NATO expense to defend countries like Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, etc. they should just keep doing it and there should be no expectation that those countries should be asked to live up to their agreement when they joined NATO?

Personally, I think NATO should be scrapped and save everyone's expenses. It has outlived its purpose of offering a counter to the Warsaw Pact since there is no longer a Warsaw Pact. NATO is now redundant, doing what the UN should be doing.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If the NATO countries agreed to spend 2% of their GDP on the military as a condition of membership, then they should either spend that 2% or renegotiate the contract to have it be a level which currently makes sense. They shouldn't just ignore their agreements.

For instance, Canada is currently spending about half of that because we don't need to spend any more because our country isn't at any military risk from anyone except the US, whom we couldn't fight against anyways and our current expenditures seem to be sufficient for what we use our military for. There's no point in us spending billions more dollars on military hardware just for the sake of ticking a box. The NATO countries need to ask ourselves what it is that we're supposed to be doing and do we have the tools to do it? If the answer is yes then lower the requirement. If the answer is no, then raise the level of spending.

 

[crispy]

Agreed, but do you think that the US will spend less money on military if they didn't?

So you are saying that because the US is currently footing a large disproportionate share of NATO expense to defend countries like Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, etc. they should just keep doing it and there should be no expectation that those countries should be asked to live up to their agreement when they joined NATO?

Personally, I think NATO should be scrapped and save everyone's expenses. It has outlived its purpose of offering a counter to the Warsaw Pact since there is no longer a Warsaw Pact. NATO is now redundant, doing what the UN should be doing.

Thats basically the argument that you think its unfair, which I addressed earlier. I don't think its a very convincing argument, as we really should be discussion what's necessary instead.

 

[LordKiran]

Agreed, but do you think that the US will spend less money on military if they didn't?

So you are saying that because the US is currently footing a large disproportionate share of NATO expense to defend countries like Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, etc. they should just keep doing it and there should be no expectation that those countries should be asked to live up to their agreement when they joined NATO?

Personally, I think NATO should be scrapped and save everyone's expenses. It has outlived its purpose of offering a counter to the Warsaw Pact since there is no longer a Warsaw Pact. NATO is now redundant, doing what the UN should be doing.

If anything the UN should be scrapped.

 

[laughing dog]

Personally, I think NATO should be scrapped and save everyone's expenses. It has outlived its purpose of offering a counter to the Warsaw Pact since there is no longer a Warsaw Pact. NATO is now redundant, doing what the UN should be doing.

Since when did the UN actually defend a country from invasion?

 

[Sarpedon]

Ah, the choice between the redundant and the ineffectual.

As long as Russia has a veto on the security council, the UN will never do anything about it. As long as Russia is the most powerful nation in Europe, NATO will be necessary. These things don't look like they will change any time soon.

 

[bilby]

Agreed, but do you think that the US will spend less money on military if they didn't?

So you are saying that because the US is currently footing a large disproportionate share of NATO expense to defend countries like Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, etc. they should just keep doing it and there should be no expectation that those countries should be asked to live up to their agreement when they joined NATO?

Personally, I think NATO should be scrapped and save everyone's expenses. It has outlived its purpose of offering a counter to the Warsaw Pact since there is no longer a Warsaw Pact. NATO is now redundant, doing what the UN should be doing.

Which is it? Redundant; or doing what the UN should be doing?

If the UN is not doing what it should, then NATO filling in for the UN is not redundant.

 

[skepticalbip]

So you are saying that because the US is currently footing a large disproportionate share of NATO expense to defend countries like Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, etc. they should just keep doing it and there should be no expectation that those countries should be asked to live up to their agreement when they joined NATO?

Personally, I think NATO should be scrapped and save everyone's expenses. It has outlived its purpose of offering a counter to the Warsaw Pact since there is no longer a Warsaw Pact. NATO is now redundant, doing what the UN should be doing.

Which is it? Redundant; or doing what the UN should be doing?

If the UN is not doing what it should, then NATO filling in for the UN is not redundant.

By redundant, I was more using the UK meaning when describing those in a position for which there is no longer a demand.