Do recent global developments change your view on defense spending?

[Fishking]

That's the biggest problem and I find it infuriating. The fact that so many NATO countries don't even reach their 2% is simply unacceptable. They have no business feeling entitled to NATO support when they are unwilling to meet their obligation. I look at this situation in Ukraine and what that country is going through while NATO countries steadfastly oppose measures to be taken in Ukraine which NATO countries feel and are "entitled" to - yet many of those countries don't even meet their minimum! In all sincerity, I think every country in NATO which doesn't meet their minimum should be booted. I'm sick and tired of the U.S. shouldering the responsibility of carrying the load.
If a country thinks this world is peaceful enough to do without proper defense, that should absolutely be their choice, but choices can certainly come with associated consequences.
I don't want any country going through what Ukraine is experiencing and I think every country better think hard about their own situation and their own vulnerability. And, if in NATO, I think meeting the threshold should be a firm requirement of membership with no exceptions. The U.S. has choices too and if the U.S. getting out of NATO or threatening to get out of NATO is the only way to fix NATO to not be a charity organization - then so be it.

Tbh....2% isn't even enough, when money is fungible and anything can be labeled as "defense" to cross the threshold. At the end of the day, it comes down to actual military capabilities, and that will never be fixed if we have a single country in NATO where article 5 has us on the hook for providing their security. Our alliances should be more passive in our ability to pick and chose when and where we want to get involved.

No country is going to take their security seriously when Article 5 has us jumping in to save them from the very get go.

 

[Callen]

Tbh....2% isn't even enough, when money is fungible and anything can be labeled as "defense" to cross the threshold. At the end of the day, it comes down to actual military capabilities, and that will never be fixed if we have a single country in NATO where article 5 has us on the hook for providing their security. Our alliances should be more passive in our ability to pick and chose when and where we want to get involved.

No country is going to take their security seriously when Article 5 has us jumping in to save them from the very get go.

Since the inception of NATO only one country has invoked article 5 and that was the US.

 

[Fishking]

Since the inception of NATO only one country has invoked article 5 and that was the US.

For a non-state terrorist organization, and it was still the US carrying it, though the support from our allies was nice. I shared a base in Afghanistan with Italians who were administratively responsible for security operations in Farah but it was actually our forces that did all the work.

Do you ever wonder why no state actor violated NATO though? Doesn't your comment make you think of the cause? What kept a much more powerful and aggressive USSR in check? A broken and spent Europe? Please, don't kid yourself.

 

[Callen]

For a non-state terrorist organization, and it was still the US carrying it, though the support from our allies was nice. I shared a base in Afghanistan with Italians who were administratively responsible for security operations in Farah but it was actually our forces that did all the work.

Do you ever wonder why no state actor violated NATO though? Doesn't your comment make you think of the cause? What kept a much more powerful and aggressive USSR in check? A broken and spent Europe? Please, don't kid yourself.

The families of our fallen Canadians looked at it differently than just nice.

 

[Callen]

For a non-state terrorist organization, and it was still the US carrying it, though the support from our allies was nice

It is this type of arrogance that defines the US. Meanwhile not one drop...not even one..of American blood has ever been spilled defending NATO countries.....not one. However we know you value money over life.

 

[bongsaway]

Buying your own product doesn't make money. That's just transferring money from one pocket (the people) to another pocket (defense contractors). If we actually had countries around the world be responsible for their own defense, we might actually make more real money, as they would have to up their defense spending.

Lol, tell that to the defense contractors. They sell their products to the u.s. government, we the people are not buying their products, we're just paying for them which is why I want to see defense spending cut.

 

[Fishking]

The families of our fallen Canadians looked at it differently than just nice.

That's an emotional argument, not a strategic or reasoned one.

 

[Callen]

That's an emotional argument, not a strategic or reasoned one.

If you say so.....yes emotional but also factual and reasoned. Not one drop of American blood has been spilled in defense of NATO. The opposite is not true.....I guess the price for being nice.

 

[jakiejakester]

And spend on what instead?

Domestic needs are many but if it were me I'd say the environment, housing and lowering the cost of college educations so more people can go which means better jobs that creates a rising tide which creates more tax money in the coffers. Do you know what it means when you say "Less Guns more Butter"?

 

[Fishking]

It is this type of arrogance that defines the US. Meanwhile not one drop...not even one..of American blood has ever been spilled defending NATO countries.....not one. However we know you value money over life.

Really? No covert operatives died during the Cold War era keeping Russia in check? OK.

 

[Callen]

Nice try. We were talking NATO.....but I understand the need to take this in a totally different direction.....

 

[Fishking]

Lol, tell that to the defense contractors. They sell their products to the u.s. government, we the people are not buying their products, we're just paying for them which is why I want to see defense spending cut.

Well...I just said it and I'm not sure what defense contractors I need to say it to as well, or why they would care at all what I have to say. It doesn't change the reality of the fact that much of our tax dollars is a transfer of wealth from the people to the private defense industries.

 

[jakiejakester]

Tbh....2% isn't even enough, when money is fungible and anything can be labeled as "defense" to cross the threshold. At the end of the day, it comes down to actual military capabilities, and that will never be fixed if we have a single country in NATO where article 5 has us on the hook for providing their security. Our alliances should be more passive in our ability to pick and chose when and where we want to get involved.

No country is going to take their security seriously when Article 5 has us jumping in to save them from the very get go.

You know if the USA had not entered WWII Hitler would have won. We are the defenders of democracy and we have more resources and know-how than anyone else so if we were to abandon NATO, tuck our head into a shell the world would be much worse off. I'm as anti-war as it gets and I clearly believe we spend too much on defense BUT we still need to be the world leader in protecting our allies, especially Europe. We can spend less and still be who we're supposed to be and prevent shit like what's happening in Ukraine to expanding to the rest of Europe and ultimately the world. These are tough decisions but we're the USA and we are the leaders of the free world and if we don't defend who will?

 

[Fishking]

You know if the USA had not entered WWII Hitler would have won. We are the defenders of democracy and we have more resources and know-how than anyone else so if we were to abandon NATO, tuck our head into a shell the world would be much worse off. I'm as anti-war as it gets and I clearly believe we spend too much on defense BUT we still need to be the world leader in protecting our allies, especially Europe. We can spend less and still be who we're supposed to be and prevent shit like what's happening in Ukraine to expanding to the rest of Europe and ultimately the world. These are tough decisions but we're the USA and we are the leaders of the free world and if we don't defend who will?

Europe had put their blood and money on the line during WWII up front, so us coming in later was much more reasonable. We can still be the world leader, but it doesn't always have to be our money, assets, and blood on the line up front.

 

[Fishking]

Nice try. We were talking NATO.....but I understand the need to take this in a totally different direction.....

Who the **** do you think the USSR was a threat to? Then you try and sneak a post in without quoting me. Nice try indeed.

 

[BirdinHand]

You know if the USA had not entered WWII Hitler would have won. We are the defenders of democracy and we have more resources and know-how than anyone else so if we were to abandon NATO, tuck our head into a shell the world would be much worse off. I'm as anti-war as it gets and I clearly believe we spend too much on defense BUT we still need to be the world leader in protecting our allies, especially Europe. We can spend less and still be who we're supposed to be and prevent shit like what's happening in Ukraine to expanding to the rest of Europe and ultimately the world. These are tough decisions but we're the USA and we are the leaders of the free world and if we don't defend who will?

Where does this feel good “defender of democracy” nonsense come from?

The US defends US interests globally - including strategic alliances and economic interests.

The US is not some great, moralistic “defender of democracy”

 

[Callen]

Who the **** do you think the USSR was a threat to? Then you try and sneak a post in without quoting me. Nice try indeed.

Sorry , meant to quote your post but it isn't possible to edit in once you post.

 

[washunut]

Ukraine is not a NATO member. We cannot take to the fight without escalating it.

But we can supply them. We can provide intelligence.

So we would go to war over Lativa. A NATO nation of less than 2 million. Seems silly to me.

 

[bongsaway]

Well...I just said it and I'm not sure what defense contractors I need to say it to as well, or why they would care at all what I have to say. It doesn't change the reality of the fact that much of our tax dollars is a transfer of wealth from the people to the private defense industries.

I agree, from the bottom to the top the money goes.

 

[brianpatrick]

We spend too much, and what is happening now doesn't change that fact. Why should the US carry the financial burden of the entire rest of the world on their shoulders?

Believe me, the US doesn’t spend what we spend because we are burdened with policing the world. It was our strategy all along after world war 2. A hedge against those kinds of atrocities. We’re in charge on purpose.

 

[gbg3]

Simple answer is someone is going to lead the world. It is inevitable.

There are 3 options who have the power to do it. The United States - China - Russia. I know who my choice to lead and shape the world is. The idea that the each country should operate in a bubble, defend themselves and rule themselves without regard for the world became outdated in the middle ages. To believe otherwise is naive. Russia is the enemy of the United States. There is no two ways about it. Listen to Putin talk. We have no choice in this. He wants to destroy what we are. He may or may not be in a position to do anything about it but if he takes over part of Europe unchecked he gets stronger. The world gets weaker. Conquering nations impact the world.

You have to pay the cost to be the boss. That is why.

Okay, but those 32 year old adults living in the basement need to get kicked out unless and until they get a job and pay their fair share of rent and utilities. I also think of the three options, the U.S. is far and away the best option to lead. If other countries want to not pay their fair share, want to spend their days bashing their best hope (the U.S.), and want to continue feeling entitled to our protection, they need get out of our way and make their own choices. They simply should not be our responsibility. Step up or get booted out of the basement.

 

[Fishking]

Believe me, the US doesn’t spend what we spend because we are burdened with policing the world. It was our strategy all along after world war 2. A hedge against those kinds of atrocities. We’re in charge on purpose.

Yes we did. We were literally the only show in town left that could stand up to the USSR. We did benefit from doing what we did but it cost us a lot and there isn't justification to still be carrying that decades beyond when it was needed.

 

[gbg3]

Tbh....2% isn't even enough, when money is fungible and anything can be labeled as "defense" to cross the threshold. At the end of the day, it comes down to actual military capabilities, and that will never be fixed if we have a single country in NATO where article 5 has us on the hook for providing their security. Our alliances should be more passive in our ability to pick and chose when and where we want to get involved.

No country is going to take their security seriously when Article 5 has us jumping in to save them from the very get go.

Complete agreement from me! NATO is a mess and Trump didn't go far enough in changing that dynamic. He was on the right track but he didn't go far enough.

 

[Callen]

Complete agreement from me! NATO is a mess and Trump didn't go far enough in changing that dynamic. He was on the right track but he didn't go far enough.

Typical Trump lots of rhetoric with zero follow through. We saw it over and over again.....all talk, no action.

 

[brianpatrick]

Yes we did. We were literally the only show in town left that could stand up to the USSR. We did benefit from doing what we did but it cost us a lot and there isn't justification to still be carrying that decades beyond when it was needed.

Hmm… maybe, but I don’t think it was as cut and dry as that. The US entered the war late, and didn’t have it fought on our mainland. It cost us some, but not nearly what it cost other European countries, and Russia. We turned the corner on “hero’s” of the world a long time ago. Our country is financially dependent on a consumer economy, including military consumerism. Disruptions in our consumer economy are bad for us so we have to police the world to keep ourselves in the black. It’s the fish eating it’s own tail.