I am sure this ends well for Iran...

#226
#226
Are we protecting them? They should pay for it. We are the de facto world police force. Time to get paid.
 
#227
#227
BeardedVol said:
Why? Would we suddenly not maintain forward staging of our own equipment?

Besides, you have to remember, what is considered 'defense spending' in NATO guidelines, doesn't mean exclusively soldiers, vehicles, and weapons.

For example:
View attachment 660026
View attachment 660027
View attachment 660028
Click to expand...
Who says we wouldn’t maintain forward staging?

Your post cited 800 bases. If all NATO members were spending 2% of their budgets on their own defense - would the US need 800 bases to “maintain” forward staging?
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#228
#228
85SugarVol said:
Who says we wouldn’t maintain forward staging?

Your post cited 800 bases. If all NATO members were spending 2% of their budgets on their own defense - would the US need 800 bases to “maintain” forward staging?
Click to expand...

Again given what constitutes 'defense spending' according to NATO, there's zero expectation that the US would decrease the number of bases it maintains, just because NATO members met their spending goals.

There's zero expectation that NATO allies meeting their own goals, would have any impact on US defense spending.
 
#229
#229
BeardedVol said:
Again given what constitutes 'defense spending' according to NATO, there's zero expectation that the US would decrease the number of bases it maintains, just because NATO members met their spending goals.

There's zero expectation that NATO allies meeting their own goals, would have any impact on US defense spending.
Click to expand...
Sure, if we are to believe NATO members increased spend would all go to funding pensions..
 
#232
#232
85SugarVol said:
You quoted it, and have twice now alluded to it.
Click to expand...
I quoted three sections highlighting the fact that 'defense spending' is a very broad term, and doesn't necessarily mean just soldiers/vehicles/weapons when it comes to NATO.

I also linked the full guidelines, feel free to read the rest of them.
 
#233
#233
BeardedVol said:
I quoted three sections highlighting the fact that 'defense spending' is a very broad term, and doesn't necessarily mean just soldiers/vehicles/weapons when it comes to NATO.

I also linked the full guidelines, feel free to read the rest of them.
Click to expand...
Yes I saw your post. Pensions, R&D, and Meteorological services.

I’m sure that’s what Poland’s increased spending is going to.
 
#234
#234
BeardedVol said:
For better or worse, our defense spending levels have nothing to do with how much any other NATO member spends on their own defense, or doesn't.

The cost of maintaining 800 military bases, and 11 carrier groups, etc. aren't affected by Poland increasing defense spending to 4+% of their GDP.

View attachment 659972
Click to expand...
My question is...does any of the defense spending that is 2% of our GDP ( which is significantly more then anyone else) go towards the defense of any other NATO country beside the US?
Also who controls how that defense spending is used??
And who controls the troops given to NATO by the other countries??
 
#235
#235
The NATO common budget is about a half trillion, so the US is kicking in under $100 million at 15%. It’s mostly symbolic to require the others to kick in more funding.

The 2% for defense expenditures is 10,000x more spending in our overall fiscal budget.
 
#236
#236
whodeycin85 said:
My question is...does any of the defense spending that is 2% of our GDP ( which is significantly more then anyone else) go towards the defense of any other NATO country beside the US?
Also who controls how that defense spending is used??
And who controls the troops given to NATO by the other countries??
Click to expand...
I've given you numerous links to NATO funding. Included in those links are how NATO pays for joint missions, exercises etc.

Please practices your reading comprehension skills
 
#237
#237
BeardedVol said:
I've given you numerous links to NATO funding. Included in those links are how NATO pays for joint missions, exercises etc.

Please practices your reading comprehension skills
Click to expand...
Don't you hate typos in posts like these? Always happens to me.

It's like tripping on the dance floor.
 
#238
#238
BeardedVol said:
They get shamed at the annual Christmas party, and NATO doesn't give them a Sizzler gift card.

NATO is not some mafia protection racket where you either pay, or bad things happen to you while the other members stand by and watch.
Click to expand...

So, it appears that the answer to my question about possible recourses to freeloaders within NATO is nothing. They can break their end of the deal without any consequences; which begs the question, what incentive is there not to freeload?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#239
#239
PKT_VOL said:
So, it appears that the answer to my question about possible recourses to freeloaders within NATO is nothing. They can break their end of the deal without any consequences; which begs the question, what incentive is there not to freeload?
Click to expand...

There is no "deal" outside of the NATO articles agreed to upon entering the defense alliance.

The defense spending goal was just that, a goal, arbitrarily set in 2006, and no, there is no mechanism for 'punishing' members who don't meet the goal.

It's in the members' best interests to meet the goal, but as I've already pointed out, what can be considered 'defense spending' under NATO guidelines is pretty broad, and isn't confined to soldiers/weapons/vehicles.

So even a country meeting the 2% goal, my not be significantly more "armed" than one spending 1.4%, depending on how they've allocated the funding.

1000007746.png

Regardless, there's zero indication that US defense spending, is in any way predicated on whether NATO members meet those goals or not; Poland spending more money on defense isn't going to make us spend less.
 
#240
#240
BeardedVol said:
There is no "deal" outside of the NATO articles agreed to upon entering the defense alliance.

The defense spending goal was just that, a goal, arbitrarily set in 2006, and no, there is no mechanism for 'punishing' members who don't meet the goal.
Click to expand...

That is the whole point of the discussion.

The US is the undisputed backbone of NATO. If the US is expected to do the heavy lifting of NATO (and I might add rightfully so), is it unreasonable of the US to expect minimum effort of member states to invest in military resources to protect themselves and lower their burden on the US/other powerful NATO members?

BeardedVol said:
It's in the members' best interests to meet the goal, but as I've already pointed out, what can be considered 'defense spending' under NATO guidelines is pretty broad, and isn't confined to soldiers/weapons/vehicles.

So even a country meeting the 2% goal, my not be significantly more "armed" than one spending 1.4%, depending on how they've allocated the funding.

View attachment 660151

Regardless, there's zero indication that US defense spending, is in any way predicated on whether NATO members meet those goals or not; Poland spending more money on defense isn't going to make us spend less.
Click to expand...

But surely you would agree, all things being equal, that spending 2% is better than spending 1.4%, right?
 
#241
#241
PKT_VOL said:
That is the whole point of the discussion.

The US is the undisputed backbone of NATO. If the US is expected to do the heavy lifting of NATO (and I might add rightfully so), is it unreasonable of the US to expect minimum effort of member states to invest in military resources to protect themselves and lower their burden on the US/other powerful NATO members?
Click to expand...

And the US will always be the backbone of NATO. No amount of additional defense spending, by any single country, will ever put them in a position to contribute to NATO forces anywhere close to the level of the US after compounding decades of US defense spending.

PKT_VOL said:
But surely you would agree, all things being equal, that spending 2% is better than spending 1.4%, right?
Click to expand...

In most cases the move from 1.x% of GDP to 2.0% of GDP is irrelevant in terms of additional significant combat resources, but sure why not, more spending is always better right?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top