[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;51363900]Most NATO members have cited the practically nonexistent threat against their respective countries for cutting their defense budgets, but given the current situation, most are finally looking into increasing their defense budget and modernising their militaries.[/QUOTE]
Still not an excuse to go against the terms of their treaty. If they don't believe there's a reason to honor the NATO agreement why should the USA continue their support?
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;51364272]Still not an excuse to go against the terms of their treaty. If they don't believe there's a reason to honor the NATO agreement why should the USA continue their support?[/QUOTE]
Which part of the agreement aren't we upholding though?
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51364277]Which part of the agreement aren't upholding though?[/QUOTE]
The 2% of GDP spent on strengthening their military.
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;51364282]The 2% of GDP spent on strengthening their military.[/QUOTE]
And is that an actual spending requirement that every country has agreed to, or is it a non-binding suggestion made by NATO?
Edit: Let me add that I've asked that question to at least five different people parroting it around here on FP, and no one has given me an answer. To me it seems that no one actually knows whether it is - personally I haven't found anything suggesting it's anything but non-binding. Hopefully things can be cleared up this time.
[QUOTE=Saturn V;51364237]the nordics afaik already have a high military spending
idk about sweden but i think they're planning on upping that shit (again)[/QUOTE]
Finland is to be expected on that part, considering who their neighbor is and they couldn't rely on anyone else in the Winter War afaik.
If anyone deserves US funding imo it's the Eastern European nations and Finland.
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;51364282]The 2% of GDP spent on strengthening their military.[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_132934.htm[/URL]
Checking out this graph, in particular the one relating to graph 2 on the .pdf if I am reading this correct shows that the US doesn't seem to spend rather much more than 3% of GDP. Now I know the US is already not too fond of paying taxes, but if they'd kindly explain where they're spending multitudes of amounts more money towards the defence budget than the entire rest of NATO's members and why we should, given that this 2% is listed as a guideline then that would help towards Trump's argument that we should spend more money on it.
Keep in mind EU is about 28 member states, the US comprimises a total of 50 states.
[QUOTE=Chopstick;51364845][URL]http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_132934.htm[/URL]
Checking out this graph, in particular the one relating to graph 2 on the .pdf if I am reading this correct shows that the US doesn't seem to spend rather much more than 3% of GDP. Now I know the US is already not too fond of paying taxes, but if they'd kindly explain where they're spending multitudes of amounts more money towards the defence budget than the entire rest of NATO's members and why we should, given that this 2% is listed as a guideline then that would help towards Trump's argument that we should spend more money on it.
Keep in mind EU is about 28 member states, the US comprimises a total of 50 states.[/QUOTE]
Keep in mind the EU is a economic union of nations and the US is a federal union, each EU member decides their own military spending whereas the federal government of the US collects taxes from each state for its military. Two completely different worlds.
[QUOTE=Chopstick;51364845][URL]http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_132934.htm[/URL]
Checking out this graph, in particular the one relating to graph 2 on the .pdf if I am reading this correct shows that the US doesn't seem to spend rather much more than 3% of GDP. Now I know the US is already not too fond of paying taxes, but if they'd kindly explain where they're spending multitudes of amounts more money towards the defence budget than the entire rest of NATO's members and why we should, given that this 2% is listed as a guideline then that would help towards Trump's argument that we should spend more money on it.[/quote]
Because in 2006 every member of NATO agreed to? Because in 2014 every member of NATO agreed to reserve the trend of declining defense budgets? Because NATO as a whole relies far too much on the US for both protection ([url=http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm]Source[/url]).
If nations within NATO do not see a reason to be in a mutual defense alliance, they should leave the alliance and ask the US to withdraw their troops and other assets from their land.
By staying, the admit through inaction they see value in such an alliance and should pay their fair share; a share they willingly agreed to 10 years ago, a share to help ensure they could pull their weight should the need arise.
[quote]Keep in mind EU is about 28 member states, the US comprimises a total of 50 states.[/QUOTE]
What is your point? NATO Europe has a higher GPD than the US.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;51365320]Because in 2006 every member of NATO agreed to? Because in 2014 every member of NATO agreed to reserve the trend of declining defense budgets? Because NATO as a whole relies far too much on the US for both protection ([url=http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm]Source[/url]).
If nations within NATO do not see a reason to be in a mutual defense alliance, they should leave the alliance and ask the US to withdraw their troops and other assets from their land.
By staying, the admit through inaction they see value in such an alliance and should pay their fair share; a share they willingly agreed to 10 years ago, a share to help ensure they could pull their weight should the need arise.
What is your point? NATO Europe has a higher GPD than the US.[/QUOTE]
A share that is non-binding. You forget that the US is free to leave as well if they think they aren't getting their money's worth. Why should Denmark leave an alliance that we benefit from and have contributed to? The more countries you have in the alliance, the less money you'd potentially be up against in a war. Denmark and US interests are pretty similar, it only makes sense that we have an alliance.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51365351]A share that is non-binding. You forget that the US is free to leave as well if they think they aren't getting their money's worth.[/QUOTE]
which is what they're looking at doing...
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;51365360]which is what they're looking at doing...[/QUOTE]
Okay, I'd have see that to believe it.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51363594]Which would set off the more aggressive aspects of the left (SJWS) to work against him. The one thing the left is good at is activism against a GOP asshole. Maybe instead of safe places and harassing me for video games I play, such activists would be pointed at more important targets.[/QUOTE]
Outside of shouty youtubers and the occasional tumblr I can't say I've ever encountered a so-called "SJW" and it sure seems like the term is thrown around a lot in order to discredit/silence what others have to say.
When have you been harassed for the videogames you play or is that just shouty youtubers with an opinion deriding your chosen entertainment? Also, are safe spaces as a concept really that widespread? Doesn't seem like it to me.
But goddamn them SJWs and Feminazis better stfu coz they b ruining the left
[QUOTE=DaMastez;51365320]Because in 2006 every member of NATO agreed to? Because in 2014 every member of NATO agreed to reserve the trend of declining defense budgets? Because NATO as a whole relies far too much on the US for both protection ([url=http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm]Source[/url]).
If nations within NATO do not see a reason to be in a mutual defense alliance, they should leave the alliance and ask the US to withdraw their troops and other assets from their land.
By staying, the admit through inaction they see value in such an alliance and should pay their fair share; a share they willingly agreed to 10 years ago, a share to help ensure they could pull their weight should the need arise.
What is your point? NATO Europe has a higher GPD than the US.[/QUOTE]
My point was that we generally have less states to pay into this system vs the US, we're going to be basically running at 3-5% GDP just to match whatever the US pays in. Even if we did manage to match it, these arrangements are based country to country so even our defence requirements are all different so trying to justify it to some states is going to be difficult particularly if the population is low and the terrain already being a huge defence anyway. I can't imagine a load of tanks rolling into this country so most of ours should be navy/sea defences.
This source cites the 2% defence investment as a guideline and although all states may agree in 2014 that we wish to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets we're no longer living in 2014 - welcome to 2016, my prime ministers have changed since then (although the party didn't).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.