Seven NATO allies to create new rapid reaction force - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Cakebatyr;45841992]Any bets as to the three-to-five letter acronym they'll adopt?[/QUOTE] USA because it basically funds the largest part of NATO activity. [IMG]http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pictures/stock_2014/20140611_140601_NATO_common_funded_budgets_2014-2015.jpg[/IMG] You're welcome Europe.

I am already in a high readiness platoon so i like this.

Little did NATO know that Dr. Nikolai Stepanovich Sokolov is developing a new Russian mobile nuclear ballistic missile system 3 miles west of Tselinoyarsk

[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;45859097]USA because it basically funds the largest part of NATO activity. [IMG]http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pictures/stock_2014/20140611_140601_NATO_common_funded_budgets_2014-2015.jpg[/IMG] You're welcome Europe.[/QUOTE] The US only pays 22%? Or am I reading that wrong? I kinda assumed they were paying like half. Of course the US has the largest standing army by far, so you could kinda make that point, but if we only go by NATO funding, countries like the UK, France and Germany are carrying the real load here - compared to their population, they're paying more. Denmark, while only paying 1.26% is actually paying a lot more than the population size would warrant - we pay almost 3 times as much per citizen, compared to the US. So unless I'm reading that wrong, pulling out NATO funding wouldn't be a good idea if you want to make Europe look bad. A better idea would be to compare the military budget with GDP or something, but really I don't know.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;45845256]It's good that other NATO members are pulling their weight in the alliance than mainly consisting of the US with some European support.[/QUOTE] Except it's not like that. If the USA chooses to go running off pursuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (both of which it received substantial assistance with from the British - a European country), then that is it's choice. Remember that NATO is obliged to aid members who have been attacked - not members who have gone invading other countries. It's like if a French person was to complain that the USA was not pulling its weight because the USA is only acting in a supporting role in Mali.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;45860981]The US only pays 22%? Or am I reading that wrong? I kinda assumed they were paying like half. Of course the US has the largest standing army by far, so you could kinda make that point, but if we only go by NATO funding, countries like the UK, France and Germany are carrying the real load here - compared to their population, they're paying more. Denmark, while only paying 1.26% is actually paying a lot more than the population size would warrant - we pay almost 3 times as much per citizen, compared to the US. So unless I'm reading that wrong, pulling out NATO funding wouldn't be a good idea if you want to make Europe look bad. A better idea would be to compare the military budget with GDP or something, but really I don't know.[/QUOTE] looks to me like we pay the majority of it [editline]1st September 2014[/editline] what the fuck? dude this forum is bugging out hardcore [editline]1st September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;45860981]The US only pays 22%? Or am I reading that wrong? I kinda assumed they were paying like half. Of course the US has the largest standing army by far, so you could kinda make that point, but if we only go by NATO funding, countries like the UK, France and Germany are carrying the real load here - compared to their population, they're paying more. Denmark, while only paying 1.26% is actually paying a lot more than the population size would warrant - we pay almost 3 times as much per citizen, compared to the US. So unless I'm reading that wrong, pulling out NATO funding wouldn't be a good idea if you want to make Europe look bad. A better idea would be to compare the military budget with GDP or something, but really I don't know.[/QUOTE] 22% though is still alot we pay more than what other countries do. the civil budget is sitting at 217 million currently and maybe a little more than that

[QUOTE=confinedUser;45863439]looks to me like we pay the majority of it [IMG]http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pictures/stock_2014/20140611_140601_NATO_common_funded_budgets_2014-2015.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Uhm, I didn't say you didn't? Just fyi the US's population is larger than France, UK and Germany's put together. They pay 36.1% together, with a population of around 210 million combined. The US pays 22.2% with a population of 310.3 million. Which means that the France, Germany and the UK are paying more per citizen (more than double actually) than the US is, even if they're paying "more" than those nations total. Should Denmark pay the same percentage as the US? Of course not, only 6 million people live in Denmark. I'm not saying the US is spending less on their military (which would be available for NATO use), and as such might be contributing more than other nations, but it's retarded to point out that US pays the majority of NATO funding when they're also by far the largest nation in the alliance. Germany is the second largest country currently in NATO, but their population is still almost 4 times smaller than that of the USA. Is this a hard concept to grasp? Again, maybe I'm completely misunderstanding the data, but I'm just going on what you're providing really. Edit: Okay, you edited your post. I think my point still applies.

NATO Assault Team Orange

I fucking hate to bring this game series up but...does all of this remind anyone else of the plot to Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare...? -Russia invading nearby countries, rumblings of civil war and political overthrow... -NATO task forces being formed -Meanwhile shit is going down in the middle east with an incredibly powerful and well funded terrorist organization, US talking of intervening soon

[QUOTE=ShadowSocks8;45863870]I fucking hate to bring this game series up but...does all of this remind anyone else of the plot to Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare...? -Russia invading nearby countries, rumblings of civil war and political overthrow... -NATO task forces being formed -Meanwhile shit is going down in the middle east with an incredibly powerful and well funded terrorist organization, US talking of intervening soon[/QUOTE] So when's the Russian Civil War start? When Putin leaves office?

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;45843481]I found that a bit funny. As if Baltic states suddenly want to be important :v:[/QUOTE] Being an Estonian, you of all people should understand the validation of our national pastime - paranoia of Russia - with each passing day. Especially now that Russia is prodding Ukraine. I'm glad to see a joint task force is being set up here. It tells me something is being done. We're not trying to appear important in the grand scheme of global politics. This isn't about who curries the most PR points in the eyes of the world. We're making sure we put in the effort, at least, to protect our homes if/when Russia decides it's tired of playing politicians. Of course I have every faith in Russia not being this reckless, but with the danger still lurking in the shadows, and considering our past, it doesn't hurt to be ready for anything. We won't go down silently. Not again. Obviously this task force won't possess the sheer volume necessary to reliably deter Russia, what with their military might, but I and many other like-minded people all around the Baltics will not just sit down and let USSR 2.0 happen. Not fucking again. It's about fucking time we grabbed our collective nuts and did some real cooperating up here.

[QUOTE=David29;45863183]Except it's not like that. If the USA chooses to go running off pursuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (both of which it received substantial assistance with from the British - a European country), then that is it's choice. Remember that NATO is obliged to aid members who have been attacked - not members who have gone invading other countries. It's like if a French person was to complain that the USA was not pulling its weight because the USA is only acting in a supporting role in Mali.[/QUOTE] Afghanistan involved all of NATO as a NATO operation.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;45867909]Afghanistan involved all of NATO as a NATO operation.[/QUOTE] I am aware of that. That doesn't mitigate my point. The USA wanted to invade - you can't then get upset because it was the USA who then had to lead that invasion. There has - to my knowledge - been no instances of a NATO member being attacked whereby the USA has jumped up and shouted: "we must defend this country with all our military might! And we will take the lead!". Actually, when a NATO member was attacked (the UK, by extension of the Falkland Islands), the USA didn't get involved beyond providing weapons and intelligence. So has the USA led any great crusades in the defence of NATO? No. Has it led any in the pursuit of its own interests? Yes.

snip