Question for US Citizens about NATO

Nov 2017
1,918
930
.
#31
Ok, OK, I found some info. Our contribution to the commonly funded NATO budget is but 22%.

The defense portion is 67%.

Important link, how NATO is paid/structured:
https://www.nato.int/cps/ie/natohq/topics_67655.htm


Like I said in the posts above, without weighing GDP's numbers become very misleading. Also many folks are measuring defense spending dollars alone. All defense dollars spent. This gives a very skewed number that is not at all applicable to NATO yet lots of partisans use these numbers and you don't even know it when you see a pie or chart. You need to find exactly what the numbers represent and where they come from. So easy to use numbers to get any answer you want. One thing that EVERYONE agrees on is that the 90% number TRump recites has no base in numbers no matter how partisan you look at it. It is a complete MADE UP number.

More distortion from Trump was him demanding immediately hitting the 2 percent goal. 2024 is the agreed date to hit it. Then he said each country's contribution should be increased to 4 percent. But not even the United States spends that much — we spend 2.7 percent.

I know a bit off subject but do you see how Trump is poisening the general population?
his words are not exaggeration, they are not even lies. They are fairy tales. He literally just makes stuff up. And does this with EVERYTHING.

I point his out because he has CREATED this "crisis." It is not a crisis. It was already being addressed. And most important, his trip did NOTHING. Nothing. Obie's work is still the template in place. All he made was noise.

Think of it like this. He is the fireman who runs out, sets a fire. Rushes back to the firehouse, hops on the truck and rushes to put it out. LITERALLY. That fireman goes to jail.

Anyway, I get the libertarian perspective. I voted libertarian for over a decade down ballot. I always voted GOP at the top. Ford, Ray-Gun, Bush...

I'll comment on what I leaned as life progressed that made me move away from libertarianism. Far away.
If I understand correctly, your 22% source is only referring to what's invested into an infrastructure & coordination entity aspect of NATO. The pie chart, on the other hand, refers to total military spending for NATO member nations.

The only analogy I can think of is a football game. There's the salaries for the players and there's the salaries for the referees. The 75% refers to the salaries for the players and referees combined, and the 22% refers to just the salaries for the referees.

If a NATO member nation is attacked, the resources they have isn't just that infrastructure & coordination entity, it's potentially all of the military of all the NATO member nations, which is what that pie chart represents.

I may be slightly off about some of the details, but let me know if I'm way off the mark.
 
Jun 2013
28,864
15,446
Ohio
#32
If I understand correctly, your 22% source is only referring to what's invested into an infrastructure & coordination entity aspect of NATO. The pie chart, on the other hand, refers to total military spending for NATO member nations.

The only analogy I can think of is a football game. There's the salaries for the players and there's the salaries for the referees. The 75% refers to the salaries for the players and referees combined, and the 22% refers to just the salaries for the referees.

If a NATO member nation is attacked, the resources they have isn't just that infrastructure & coordination entity, it's potentially all of the military of all the NATO member nations, which is what that pie chart represents.

I may be slightly off about some of the details, but let me know if I'm way off the mark.
(My bold)

Yes, after 9-11 our NATO allies absorbed great cost when coming to our support in Afghanistan.
 
Likes: 1 person
Nov 2017
1,918
930
.
#33
(My bold)

Yes, after 9-11 our NATO allies absorbed great cost when coming to our support in Afghanistan.
Ok, so what's your point? That it would be to their benefit if we weren't part of NATO? If so, that sounds sort of like an endorsement for getting the US out of NATO.
 
Nov 2013
2,445
1,035
NM
#34
Former people

We "fund" Europe's healthcare programs.
Indirectly, I assume - by taking on more of their defense burden than we need to. & yes, 1945 was quite a while ago. If Europe has recovered from WWII to the point that Germany has reunified & is again the strongest nation there - economically & militarily - then yes, they all should contribute more towards their own defense, in line with what they can afford.

Putin nor the Russian Federation show any signs of recognizing reality - in fact, they're playing from weakness, gambling that they can engage in a nation-level act of Nice country ya got here, gospodin, shame if something were to happen to it.

As it is, TMK the UK forces are the only European ones we - the US military - can truly interoperate with in the field.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2013
2,445
1,035
NM
#35
& go it alone?

Pull out of NATO. Team up w/ russia and any nations that wish to leave the EU. Take all of the oil from the ME. Buy Venezuela for like $10

That is the winning play for all of you globalist warhawks.

Or we could just bring home every single one of our troops and close every single international military base and let them police themselves.

That's the play i would choose.
Yah. We didn't concede Europe in WWI nor WWII, we didn't concede the Philippines, China, VN, Korea, SE Asia in general to Japan in WWII. So why would we concede Europe & all the resources in all the World to Russia or China? We need access to lots of ores & raw resources - we're willing to pay.

& we need transit rights to international waters - our economy is too tied into the World economy, & it's too late to revert to a purely domestic economy - & I'm not sure it's even possible, @ this point.
 
Likes: 1 person
Jul 2018
3,955
1,797
Trump World! Where the circus is always in town.
#36
Yah. We didn't concede Europe in WWI nor WWII, we didn't concede the Philippines, China, VN, Korea, SE Asia in general to Japan in WWII. So why would we concede Europe & all the resources in all the World to Russia or China? We need access to lots of ores & raw resources - we're willing to pay.

& we need transit rights to international waters - our economy is too tied into the World economy, & it's too late to revert to a purely domestic economy - & I'm not sure it's even possible, @ this point.
bam

we did a damned good job making everyone depend on us

it has served us well, very very well

nothing wrong with nato countries pay a bit more but all in all we have and continue to our monies worth and more, way more

just like we planned it
 
Jul 2018
3,955
1,797
Trump World! Where the circus is always in town.
#37
real numbers

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/02/16/military-spending-by-nato-members

---------------------

another link

notice the top of page 3 in the link below
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_07/20180709_180710-pr2018-91-en.pdf

our spending is down as most other nato countries are up

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_07/20180709_180710-pr2018-91-en.pdf

so things are changing to our advantage and trump did NOTHING

I apologize to the OP as he asked if we needed NATO and I speak in large part to the overall relationship and the mess trump is making FOR NO DAMNED REASON.


Also note that these are real numbers not Trump's inane 90% ramblings which is what started the entire conversation.
 
Dec 2013
33,443
19,259
Beware of watermelons
#38
Yah. We didn't concede Europe in WWI nor WWII, we didn't concede the Philippines, China, VN, Korea, SE Asia in general to Japan in WWII. So why would we concede Europe & all the resources in all the World to Russia or China? We need access to lots of ores & raw resources - we're willing to pay.

& we need transit rights to international waters - our economy is too tied into the World economy, & it's too late to revert to a purely domestic economy - & I'm not sure it's even possible, @ this point.
Who said anything about conceding or loosing access to anything?

Why would you think we would loose access to international waters. Do you think what, Greece is going to build a super navy tomorrow and start patrolling international waters for the EU or something?
 
Apr 2013
37,107
25,315
La La Land North
#39
B-b-b-b-b-b-but if you stay in NATO, that superagressive warmongering Montenegro will start a war and article 5 would demand that the US go to war to help them. He doesn't want to have to do that.

Never mind that the only country in NATO who ever invoked article 5 is the US.

Might that outburst be related to the last part of the country's name and he really doesn't know where it or the North Atlantic is?

https://bbc.com/news/world-europe-44877718
 
Nov 2013
2,445
1,035
NM
#40
Navigating the ship of state

Who said anything about conceding or loosing access to anything?

Why would you think we would loose access to international waters. Do you think what, Greece is going to build a super navy tomorrow and start patrolling international waters for the EU or something?
China won the Battle of the Paracel Islands in 1974 (against SVN). China is building up & fortifying the Spratly & Paracel Islands, & they're tying to bum-rush merchantmen into avoiding those waters - a de facto kind of annexation of the islands & waters, in defiance of settled law. The Chinese claim against VN (for the islands) is still active, TMK.

The Chinese are very hard to get rid of, once they settle in. You could ask the VN about it - they took a long time to expel them, the first time. The Russians fold easily enough - their last tour through Tsushima Strait (against Imperial Japan), back in the days of the empire, was probably enough to scare them shitless yet. & the USSR tried for a blue-water navy again, but then their economic/political house of cards collapsed on them.

The Greek Empire was a real entity, back in the days of Alexander the Great. That doesn't seem likely to come back to haunt us now, though.

China's the one to watch. The Russian Federation bears watching, if only because they might get desperate for attention & start flailing about - a bigger-nation version of N. Korea's antics.