Trump says US may abandon automatic protections for Nato countries

[Victorian Gray]

I don't think this is accurate. I remember the figure being talked about way back in the '80's. Mainly because Canada was being criticized even then for Low Expenditures.

quick google turned up this from the UK

"In 2006, NATO allies set a target to spend 2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence."

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN07134#fullreport

and a quick look at a couple of articles show them all referring to it as a target or goal as well.

 

[glenn1]

quick google turned up this from the UK

"In 2006, NATO allies set a target to spend 2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence."

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN07134#fullreport

and a quick look at a couple of articles show them all referring to it as a target or goal as well.

So then if a NATO member gets attacked we'll spend a percentage of U.S. GDP to defend them equal to what the member in question spent. In Spain's case of 0.9% of GDP that means they can expect a spend from us for about $150B defending them. Which will pay for deployment of about a couple brigade combat teams for a couple months. Hope that helps you fight whoever's invading you and if not tough shit guys. Shoulda budgeted better.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So then if a NATO member gets attacked we'll spend a percentage of U.S. GDP to defend them equal to what the member in question spent. In Spain's case of 0.9% of GDP that means they can expect a spend from us for about $150B defending them. Which will pay for deployment of about a couple brigade combat teams for a couple months. Hope that helps you fight whoever's invading you and if not tough shit guys. Shoulda budgeted better.

Dude, you think that the US is in NATO to defend Europe? Damn, you are a funny guy.

 

[Vic]

Trump is a Putin puppet. Look at his campaign chief. Same guy Putin sent to install his puppet in Ukraine.

Crazy as it sounds, this is starting to look like a real possibility.

 

[DrPizza]

Maybe he knows. Those baltic countries are required to spend a certain percentage of their GDP on defense... which they do not. Why? because they know they US is bound by a treaty to come to their aid. Fuck that. And turkey? I would not want one American to die defending that country.

Trumps issue is with how the treaty membership is lopsided. Why should the U.S. spend so much defending other NATO members when they don't spend the required money themselves?

Or maybe we should just spend less on the military to subsidize healthcare & social programs in this country.

It's not like Nato members are extorting us to spend what we do.

Wait. What?! Haven't the Republicans figured out that Trump's idea is to spend a lot less money on our military? Don't they know what the money spent on the military is used for? I thought the Republican platform was that despite the US spending more than the next 20 nations combined on defense, it's not enough.

 

[theeedude]

Crazy as it sounds, this is starting to look like a real possibility.

Trumpukovich 🙂

 

[SP33Demon]

Wait. What?! Haven't the Republicans figured out that Trump's idea is to spend a lot less money on our military? Don't they know what the money spent on the military is used for? I thought the Republican platform was that despite the US spending more than the next 20 nations combined on defense, it's not enough.

It's to spend less on foreign soil where our partners aren't chipping in. Other spending will be to build up our tech domestically and support our vets better here. Absolutely no reason that we should be spending the most for this fucking "alliance" when we need the money at home.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

I'm guessing, but maybe there are strategic reasons as well. So that it is more important to keep certain countries as allies, even if they don't fully pay their way, at the moment.

Consider an ex-USSR, Baltic state country. Typically they have little money/resources.

So they are of important military advantage to the US. Because it means that the US, can place military items (e.g. Anti-Nuclear bomb, ballistic missile, defense systems, potentially in countries near Russia). Early warning radar systems, air-bases, sea port access, military bases etc.
There is probably important (military secrets and open stuff) information, coming from countries, previously tied in with Russia, and physically near. Many of the population even speak Russian.

So if the US considers Russia as a potentially significant and possible future (or even current) enemy. It makes sense to keep those countries on-board, as it may save the US a lot of time, expense and hassle, if it has to cope without all those various advantages.

Analogy:
(Not connected to Russia).
If South Korea and the US have good relationships, and "crazy" North Korea decides to start taking pot shots at US assets, via North Korean Nuclear Ballistic missile(s). The US can just press a button, and shoot them down via anti-ballistic missiles based in South Korea.
But if the US did not have South Korea as an ally, the US might have to put up with North Korean Nuclear Bomb armed, Ballistic Missile(s), taking pot shots at US territories.

It's possible the missile defense system is only for South Korea, I'm NOT sure. But anyway the high performance radar systems, help other systems track and take out enemy ballistic missiles, so it still is probably useful, anyway.

Most jet fighters only have a limited (easy, without re-fueling) range of a few hundred miles or so. So having military bases all over the planet, and many aircraft carriers, helps keep the US (and NATO) well defended, wherever in the world, enemies spring up.
If Trump were to tighten his belt, and turn many of the currently available military bases, and friendly/ally countries, into unfriendly/unusable entities.
Then fighting ISIS, and any other possible future enemies would be much harder, and possibly considerably more expensive.

tl;dr
I think it would be a false economy to mess with Nato too much. It might even leave the US less defended in the future.

 

[Jhhnn]

So an Op-Ed is supposed to convince me that U.S. taxpayers should subsidize the defense of Europeans who can't be troubled to spend their own taxpayer money to do so? If anything you linking an article with the premise "Russia Is Outmanned and Outgunned" should lead the U.S. to reduce its own unilateral and unrequited spending on the defense of others who don't want to be troubled to do it themselves.

Trumpian spew. What the piece shows is that the Russian threat is greatly exaggerated & that nobody needs to spend more money to defend themselves. The Cold War ended long ago.

Obviously, we could spend less. That doesn't mean we should abandon our allies if they don't spend more.

 

[glenn1]

Trumpian spew. What the piece shows is that the Russian threat is greatly exaggerated & that nobody needs to spend more money to defend themselves. The Cold War ended long ago.

Obviously, we could spend less. That doesn't mean we should abandon our allies if they don't spend more.

If we want deadbeat "allies" we can get those anywhere in the world and don't need to rely on NATO to provide them. And honestly they need a bit more of this treatment.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/t/no-pay-no-spray-firefighters-let-home-burn/

 

[fskimospy]

If we want deadbeat "allies" we can get those anywhere in the world and don't need to rely on NATO to provide them. And honestly they need a bit more of this treatment.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/t/no-pay-no-spray-firefighters-let-home-burn/

Even if that were the case (and it's not), those sentiments should be discussed in private, not ranted about by a presidential candidate.

It was a stupid mistake that harmed US national security for no reason and he should apologize. He won't, but he should.

 

[Jhhnn]

If we want deadbeat "allies" we can get those anywhere in the world and don't need to rely on NATO to provide them. And honestly they need a bit more of this treatment.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/t/no-pay-no-spray-firefighters-let-home-burn/

Except our European allies aren't deadbeats at all nor do they fail to provide for their own defense in the context of the current situation.

Trump says a lot of stupid nonsensical shit designed to bring out equally stupid nonsensical self righteousness among his devotees. You fell for it, of course.

 

[glenn1]

Even if that were the case (and it's not), those sentiments should be discussed in private, not ranted about by a presidential candidate.

It was a stupid mistake that harmed US national security for no reason and he should apologize. He won't, but he should.

You're wrong. Not only should he not apologize he should talk more that way. The time for polite diplomacy is well past need to get their ass off the pot and pay their own damn way.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're wrong. Not only should he not apologize he should talk more that way. The time for polite diplomacy is well past need to get their ass off the pot and pay their own damn way.

Merely because Trump says something doesn't make it true except in the minds of Believers.

It's clear that a united Nato is perfectly capable of defending themselves against any realistic threat with current levels of spending on the part of European members alone.

GDP of the EU (basicallly Nato) is roughly $15T. GDP of Russia is $2T. Nato spends a higher % of GDP on the military than Russia.

Figure out who's really a threat to who.

 

[fskimospy]

You're wrong. Not only should he not apologize he should talk more that way. The time for polite diplomacy is well past need to get their ass off the pot and pay their own damn way.

Yes because bluster and impotent threats have such a great recent track record. Only a fool would think that this would be effective. Look at Iran for example, GWB ranted and blustered at them for years. What did it do? Nothing but make them even more committed to building nukes. Obama used his head and worked with other countries and we dramatically curtailed their nuclear program.

Gaming out how this works is pretty easy. NATO relies on an ironclad understanding that an attack on one country is an attack on all. Once the main military force behind that pledge says they will take their treaty obligations on a case by case basis that promise stops meaning much, which means the countries that currently operate in our sphere of influence start making other plans that don't involve us.

It doesn't take a master diplomat to see why what Trump did here was dumb. It's pointless bluster he can't follow through on that weakens the commitment of our allies. Talking more like that means you want him to perform more stupid, impotent ranting. Why would you want that?

 

[piasabird]

I dont think Americans should be dying to save Muslims that want to kill us. I also dont think protecting countries like South Korea, Japan, and Germany are worth doing. After 50 years we have done enough.

 

[glenn1]

Merely because Trump says something doesn't make it true except in the minds of Believers.

It's clear that a united Nato is perfectly capable of defending themselves against any realistic threat with current levels of spending on the part of European members alone.

GDP of the EU (basicallly Nato) is roughly $15T. GDP of Russia is $2T. Nato spends a higher % of GDP on the military than Russia.

Figure out who's really a threat to who.

You're making the case for why we should not allow ourselves to be taken advantage of for decades on end. A strong Russian threat is reason to be flexible with our so called allies, a weak Russia is when we can demand they live up to their agreement and stop coddling their misbehavior.

 

[glenn1]

Yes because bluster and impotent threats have such a great recent track record. Only a fool would think that this would be effective. Look at Iran for example, GWB ranted and blustered at them for years. What did it do? Nothing but make them even more committed to building nukes. Obama used his head and worked with other countries and we dramatically curtailed their nuclear program.

Gaming out how this works is pretty easy. NATO relies on an ironclad understanding that an attack on one country is an attack on all. Once the main military force behind that pledge says they will take their treaty obligations on a case by case basis that promise stops meaning much, which means the countries that currently operate in our sphere of influence start making other plans that don't involve us.

It doesn't take a master diplomat to see why what Trump did here was dumb. It's pointless bluster he can't follow through on that weakens the commitment of our allies. Talking more like that means you want him to perform more stupid, impotent ranting. Why would you want that?

Yes and those plans would inevitably include raises to their defense spending. I don't give a shit if they withheld their worthless "help" to us in return.

 

[Subyman]

Alright, so I was watching some republican congressman and advisors talk about this issue last night. They were harping on "fair share" quite a bit. I think this goes much deeper than these small countries not spending enough which causes a performance deficit that the US is forced to fill. IMO this is a ploy to force countries to spend more on US weapons and defense companies. It's brilliant really, the more we spend, the less it looks like everyone else spends and we can say they aren't pulling their weight. All along the major benefactors are the US defense companies.

Brutal!

We are effectively telling them how to spend their money and directing it to our firms. This is looking more like exploiting our allies than anything else.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes and those plans would inevitably include raises to their defense spending. I don't give a shit if they withheld their worthless "help" to us in return.

Not really inevitably at all, it could also simply mean aligning with our enemies.

If you think their help is worthless you're as big a fool as Trump is. Their help is not their military, it is their territory, our flight paths, the ability to stage logistics from their territory. To stage troops there. Bases, etc, etc.

Again, Trump is an incompetent, especially when it comes to foreign policy. He should apologize for damaging US national security.

 

[glenn1]

Not really inevitably at all, it could also simply mean aligning with our enemies.

If you think their help is worthless you're as big a fool as Trump is. Their help is not their military, it is their territory, our flight paths, the ability to stage logistics from their territory. To stage troops there. Bases, etc, etc.

Again, Trump is an incompetent, especially when it comes to foreign policy. He should apologize for damaging US national security.

So unless we fund their own defense they'll align with our enemies? Sounds like what I already said, they're not allies but rather just con artists looking for who they can exploit the most. If they want to go to China for protection because they think that Beijing will pay more towards their defense than the U.S. will then they can give that a try.

And I'm perfectly fine with forgoing all those things like flight paths. We already have enough overseas adventurism as it is and if we're not able to stage troops in a exploitative NATO "ally" and that prevents something like the next Iraq invasion well then I guess that's a "price" we will just need to pay.

 

[theeedude]

This is disqualifying statement for someone who wants to be the leader of the free world.

 

[fskimospy]

So unless we fund their own defense they'll align with our enemies? Sounds like what I already said, they're not allies but rather just con artists looking for who they can exploit the most. If they want to go to China for protection because they think that Beijing will pay more towards their defense than the U.S. will then they can give that a try.

No, all countries have a web of interests and when we have foolish presidential candidates undermining the fundamental purpose of our bedrock national security treaties on a whim that's a bad idea.

I honestly think he just didn't understand what he was talking about. That's really dangerous too though.

And I'm perfectly fine with forgoing all those things like flight paths. We already have enough overseas adventurism as it is and if we're not able to stage troops in a exploitative NATO "ally" and that prevents something like the next Iraq invasion well then I guess that's a "price" we will just need to pay.

Why would it do that, what is the basis for you thinking it will make conflict less likely, etc, etc?

 

[glenn1]

No, all countries have a web of interests and when we have foolish presidential candidates undermining the fundamental purpose of our bedrock national security treaties on a whim that's a bad idea.

I honestly think he just didn't understand what he was talking about. That's really dangerous too though.



Why would it do that, what is the basis for you thinking it will make conflict less likely, etc, etc?

Yes I get it you just think that freeloading is A-OK whether it's social welfare or national defense makes no difference. Hopefully someday you stop prioritizing the 'web of interests' of our so-called allies to screw us over so they can spend on themselves.

 

[Subyman]

Yes I get it you just think that freeloading is A-OK whether it's social welfare or national defense makes no difference. Hopefully someday you stop prioritizing the 'web of interests' of our so-called allies to screw us over so they can spend on themselves.

So you get to determine how much another country has to spend relative to their GDP? I haven't seen anything that says their performance per capita isn't up to the task. In fact, some of those countries spend more per capita than we do!