Mattis to NATO nations: Increase military spending - Polidicks

[QUOTE]In an ultimatum to America's allies, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told fellow NATO members Wednesday to increase military spending by year's end or risk seeing the U.S. curtail its defense support — a stark threat given Europe's deep unease already over U.S.-Russian relations. Echoing President Donald Trump's demands for NATO countries to assume greater self-defense responsibility, Mattis said Washington will "moderate its commitment" to the alliance if countries fail to fall in line. He didn't offer details, but the pressure is sure to be felt, particularly by governments in Europe's eastern reaches that feel threatened by Russian expansionism. "No longer can the American taxpayer carry a disproportionate share of the defense of Western values," Mattis told the alliance's 27 other defense ministers, according to a text of his remarks. "Americans cannot care more for your children's future security than you do."[/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.yahoo.com/news/pentagon-chief-mattis-makes-clear-us-committed-nato-135812034--politics.html"]Source[/URL]

They really should. If they expect America to do all the work that makes a lot of risks.

If we were to abandon NATO, it'll be our s loss more than anyone. NATO gives us staging points from all over Europe.

I think they have higher priorities than military spending. Energy independence in the form of renewable resources such as geothermal/solar provide a safer way of insuring stability within a state. NATO members are often dependent upon potential aggressors (Russia) for fossil fuels, which serve to weaken their standing. Terrorism in the mid east exists largely because of oil driven actions in the area. Seems like most every issue we have could be resolved if we were to invest as much in solar as we do on military spending.

Fuck the US, at this point. A Eurasia coalition seems like a much better idea. Make America humble again.

[QUOTE=V12US;51827544]Fuck the US, at this point. A Eurasia coalition seems like a much better idea. Make America humble again.[/QUOTE] Best wishes, friend! Wait until you find out how much the US comprises of the NATO logistics background...

EU Nations are gonna have to invest more anyway, there's no way they'd have enough transport capability without US assistance.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51827540]If we were to abandon NATO, [B]it'll be our s loss more than anyone. NATO gives us staging points from all over Europe.[/B][/QUOTE] This argument only works if you're an imperialist though.

[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;51827542]I think they have higher priorities than military spending. Energy independence in the form of renewable resources such as geothermal/solar provide a safer way of insuring stability within a state. NATO members are often dependent upon potential aggressors (Russia) for fossil fuels, which serve to weaken their standing. Terrorism in the mid east exists largely because of oil driven actions in the area. Seems like most every issue we have could be resolved if we were to invest as much in solar as we do on military spending.[/QUOTE] Then those countries should drop out of NATO, build their infrastructure, then reapply for membership when they can honor and fulfill their duties to the treaty. I'm sure there is a LOT of renewable infrastructure the US could build if it cut it's NATO spending too.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51827540]If we were to abandon NATO, it'll be our s loss more than anyone. NATO gives us staging points from all over Europe.[/QUOTE] Should be when America can't help.

Seems fair enough. Pacta sunt servanda

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51827593]This argument only works if you're an imperialist though.[/QUOTE] what?

[QUOTE=V12US;51827544]Fuck the US, at this point. A Eurasia coalition seems like a much better idea. Make America humble again.[/QUOTE] "fuck the USA for telling us to spend more on military, let's spend more on military"

You know it's funny Mattis is using a legit complaint and trying to help rectify it by asking other nations, Trump's using this as excuse to Disband NATO.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51827608]Then those countries should drop out of NATO, build their infrastructure, then reapply for membership when they can honor and fulfill their duties to the treaty. I'm sure there is a LOT of renewable infrastructure the US could build if it cut it's NATO spending too.[/QUOTE] They should cut their defense budget first because that part of the budget is way bigger than any other.

I can understand why the US wants its allies to increase their military spending, but I'd suggest the US start decreasing its own if it actually wants to save money. In my view, the US is spending a lot simply because it wants a large military, one that can carry out operations all over the world. Denmark has no need for such a military force, so we spend less. [editline]15th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51827608]Then those countries should drop out of NATO, build their infrastructure, then reapply for membership when they can honor and fulfill their duties to the treaty. I'm sure there is a LOT of renewable infrastructure the US could build if it cut it's NATO spending too.[/QUOTE] There isn't a spending requirement in the treaty, though - at least as far as I'm concerned. There's a very loose, ten-year old, non-binding commitment to try spend 2% of GDP on the military, but that's about it.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51827540]If we were to abandon NATO, it'll be our s loss more than anyone. NATO gives us staging points from all over Europe.[/QUOTE] Most of those staging points were out in place to curtail Russia. Almost everything we've been doing in the middle east has been based on Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, and we even go as far as just flying some of our bombers straight from CONUS. Let's make no mistake here, in the unlikely but still possible scenario that Russia decided to invade their previous USSR territories the US is what's going to take the brunt of it militarily. After WWII the US set up bases mostly to prevent the spread of communism, but also because everyone in Europe had to rebuild damn near everything. That's happened now, and the European nations can afford to start taking more responsibilities within NATO. If you don't think so then don't go crying about the US being the world police, other countries just as much as the US pushed for that to be the case. Now that we want to take a step back it's all of a sudden an issue, even though for years people have been asking for it.

Reminder that if your country is in NATO, they're supposed to spend at least 2% recommended of your GDP on defense. This isn't new news, and it's time it was brought up.

[QUOTE=V12US;51827544]Fuck the US, at this point. A Eurasia coalition seems like a much better idea. Make America humble again.[/QUOTE] It'd be crazy to throw Nato in the bin, because it promotes peace extremely well by unifying our interests and acting as a deterrent for exterior forces.

I really can't see our government increasing the defence budget, our government for the past 10 years has pretty much been committed to austerity. I'd sooner want our NHS budget to increase than the defence budget, we'd be defending a graveyard otherwise. Walls, bullets and bombs don't save lives. Something tells me it's going to take more than a concerned USA Defense Secretary to decide what our taxpayers will spend the money on.

If the US wants them to raise their spending, it's most likely to start with the US cutting their own. Because that's the thing, why would these countries give a damn if the US in practice is almost begging to take on the whole burden

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51827823]They should cut their defense budget first because that part of the budget is way bigger than any other.[/QUOTE] You're right. We should start with our NATO defense spending since the other member countries of NATO decided that it's not important. [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51827827]I can understand why the US wants its allies to increase their military spending, but I'd suggest the US start decreasing its own if it actually wants to save money. In my view, the US is spending a lot simply because it wants a large military, one that can carry out operations all over the world. Denmark has no need for such a military force, so we spend less.[/QUOTE] The point of NATO is not to have every country be a major military powerhouse. The point of NATO is also NOT to have one country supporting the security of the rest. [QUOTE]There isn't a spending requirement in the treaty, though - at least as far as I'm concerned. There's a very loose, ten-year old, non-binding commitment to try spend 2% of GDP on the military, but that's about it.[/QUOTE] The rule was put in place to make sure that European countries would continue to spend and upgrade their military outside of war time so that if the time ever comes, they will at least already be adequately prepared. Otherwise, it's just the US being Europe's big daddy, in which case what's the point of the US being in it in the first place?

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51827965]If the US wants them to raise their spending, it's most likely to start with the US cutting their own. Because that's the thing, why would these countries give a damn if the US in practice is almost begging to take on the whole burden[/QUOTE] So the response to needing NATO to be more of a commitment for other countries it to commit less? How about other countries at least reach the 2% recommended before we get less funds to it.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;51827982]So the response to needing NATO to be more of a commitment for other countries it to commit less? How about other countries at least reach the 2% recommended before we get less funds to it.[/QUOTE]Those countries will raise their military spending if they see a need. Right now, there is none since the US basically has Europe covered from any potential threat.

If you read beyond OP's snippet it seems Mattis wants NATO members to pay their fair share in order to make NATO strong. I was worried about Mattis was playing into Trumps campaign rhetoric but it seems like the opposite. Somewhat apprehensive about telling the world that we would "moderate" our collective defense because a country paid 1.7% of their GDP into defense instead of the 2% but it seems like he made the case that NATO needs to exist and moreso, needs to become a stronger, more cohesive force against Russian imperialism and threats in the Middle East.

Greece at 2.3 % GDP and there fucking in financial hell hole.

[QUOTE=Aide;51828022]Greece at 2.3 % GDP and there fucking in financial hell hole.[/QUOTE] Countries that overspend on their armed forces typically are financial hell holes.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51827975]The point of NATO is not to have every country be a major military powerhouse. The point of NATO is also NOT to have one country supporting the security of the rest. [/quote] Sure, which is why the US is free to decrease its own spending and push for other countries to spend more. What I'm arguing is that the US' budget is so large not because it's simply nannying Europe, but because the US wants a large military itself. I know that on your standard world map, Russia looks much close to Europe (and of course a ground invasion would be much more likely there), but I doubt the US would suddenly reduce its spending to zero just because it didn't have to protect us Europeans. There's a reason why the US has basically all the aircraft carriers in the world, and it's not because Denmark is spending 1% of its GDP instead of two. [quote]The rule was put in place to make sure that European countries would continue to spend and upgrade their military outside of war time so that if the time ever comes, they will at least already be adequately prepared. Otherwise, it's just the US being Europe's big daddy, in which case what's the point of the US being in it in the first place?[/QUOTE] Yeah, the non-binding commitment to try to spend more money on the military was supposed to make European countries spend more. Military spending is domestic spending, though - if the US wants to pressure European countries into spending more, it either needs to decrease its spending significantly (perhaps necessitating more European spending), or it needs to threaten to step out of NATO, which would simply be silly. I don't really see the Danish government being able to persuade the Danish population that we need to spend twice as much as we do unless there's actually a very good reason to do so. People around here don't want more tanks or even the planes we [I]do[/I] have to replace, they want more welfare or maybe a tax decrease depending on your political affiliation. Basically, it's probably not politically feasible with such an increase when other programs are getting cuts. I'd guess the same applied to other countries in Europe to varying degrees.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51828074]Sure, which is why the US is free to decrease its own spending and push for other countries to spend more. What I'm arguing is that the US' budget is so large not because it's simply nannying Europe, but because the US wants a large military itself. I know that on your standard world map, Russia looks much close to Europe (and of course a ground invasion would be much more likely there), but I doubt the US would suddenly reduce its spending to zero just because it didn't have to protect us Europeans. There's a reason why the US has basically all the aircraft carriers in the world, and it's not because Denmark is spending 1% of its GDP instead of two.[/QUOTE] Nowhere do I state that the US spends what it does on military to protect Europe. When I say that it's not the point for one country to support the security of the rest, I mean that NATO wasn't made so that countries could slack on their own protection because they know they can call on the treaty. Each member is supposed to be ready to go to battle for each other. How can that happen if the majority are ill equipped to help in any way because they neglected their military? [QUOTE]Yeah, the non-binding commitment to try to spend more money on the military was supposed to make European countries spend more. Military spending is domestic spending, though - if the US wants to pressure European countries into spending more, it either needs to decrease its spending significantly (perhaps necessitating more European spending), or it needs to threaten to step out of NATO, which would simply be silly. I don't really see the Danish government being able to persuade the Danish population that we need to spend twice as much as we do unless there's actually a very good reason to do so. People around here don't want more tanks or even the planes we [I]do[/I] have to replace, they want more welfare or maybe a tax decrease depending on your political affiliation. Basically, it's probably not politically feasible with such an increase when other programs are getting cuts. I'd guess the same applied to other countries in Europe to varying degrees.[/QUOTE] Then what's the point of NATO? It's supposed to be a type of collective military, but most of the countries can't hold up their end of the collective. What's the benefit other than Europe being able to mooch off of the US's military strength?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51828206]Nowhere do I state that the US spends what it does on military to protect Europe. When I say that it's not the point for one country to support the security of the rest, I mean that NATO wasn't made so that countries could slack on their own protection because they know they can call on the treaty. Each member is supposed to be ready to go to battle for each other. How can that happen if the majority are ill equipped to help in any way because they neglected their military? Then what's the point of NATO? It's supposed to be a type of collective military, but most of the countries can't hold up their end of the collective. What's the benefit other than Europe being able to mooch off of the US's military strength?[/QUOTE] The point of NATO is to make its members stand stronger than they would alone, and the biggest part is simply being a deterrent. In that case, simply adding to the military budget makes a lot of sense, even if those countries don't spend a large part of their actual GDP. If the US only spent 1% of its GDP on its military, it would still be stupid to refuse them, simply because 1% of the US's GDP is A) Still a pretty large portion of money, and B) 1% of its GDP that isn't potentially going to your enemy's alliance. Let's take Denmark as an example - we don't spend that much on our military (whether as part of GDP or in nominal value), but does it cost the US anything to add Denmark to NATO? I'd argue that it doesn't (or at least only very little money), because the more members you have in your coalition, the less people you have to fight against. And there are of course other benefits to NATO for the US - Denmark is about to spend a bunch of money buying F-35s from the US, for example, and guess where our current F-16s came from. Then there's the sharing of intelligence and so on and so forth. It makes a lot more sense to be in NATO than not being in NATO, low defence budgets or not. Personally I'd argue that NATO's budget is already pretty big, and it doesn't seem to me that there's an urgent need to spend more money on defence. If the US thinks it spends too much money on its military, it is free to reduce that spending (though I do not find that very likely), and then I think it'd be prudent to reassess the situation. Until then, I don't think Denmark should waste money on a military that doesn't add anything to the equation. We have other things to take care of that the US doesn't want to and doesn't have to deal with to any large degree - refugees come to mind.