• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump’s ‘5 percent down’ plan for Europe (1 Viewer)

Yep, and is apparently optional.


Aspirational

Given Canada has a 60 billion dollar deficit this year, combined with Trump tariff threats the likelihood of increasing the military budget is very unlikely. Even with a change in government. Or in the coming years.

I would rather sew the money reducing the deficit and maintaining health care services
 
That other country can't even beat Ukraine. Which is logistically much easier to support an invasion as opposed to having cross an ocean
We are actually in agreement. At this point, I am not certain why either Canada or the US are in NATO.

Canada is a bit in the position of the US for one hundred years when historical what ifs are asked (hah 1880 Prussia could have conquered all the Americas - they had no armies! - well er we didn't need one). They don't need a large military machine to protect itself.
 
The only money that Donald Trump never demands be spent is his own money.

Funny how that works.
 
We are actually in agreement. At this point, I am not certain why either Canada or the US are in NATO.

Canada is a bit in the position of the US for one hundred years when historical what ifs are asked (hah 1880 Prussia could have conquered all the Americas - they had no armies! - well er we didn't need one). They don't need a large military machine to protect itself.

The idea behind having multi-national defense treaties is that no member nation (alone) would have to spend enough to defend itself.
 
The idea behind having multi-national defense treaties is that no member nation (alone) would have to spend enough to defend itself.


Given the defense budget of the NATO countries as they were and are even before the 2% target was decided on, were not NATO countries well defended against attacks directly on NATO countries?

Ie strong enough to deter invasion?

Given the combined budget would have been 4 times that of the largest non nato countries military budget. How much more would be required for defense?
 
Given the defense budget of the NATO countries as they were and are even before the 2% target was decided on, were not NATO countries well defended against attacks directly on NATO countries?

Ie strong enough to deter invasion?

Given the combined budget would have been 4 times that of the largest non nato countries military budget. How much more would be required for defense?

Hmm… since the other NATO nations are contributing enough (combined), then why should Canada have to do so as well? ;)
 
Why thank the US for wasting its money?

The only country that can invade Canada is the US. No amount of spending by Canada would allow Canada to defend against a US invasion

So the invasion of other countries, by a country hostile to Canada, has no potential detrimental affect ?
 
The US can't dictate how European countries spend their money any more than Europe can dictate US spending.
 
The US can't dictate how European countries spend their money any more than Europe can dictate US spending.

Well it can bring a lot of pressure on European countries to increase defense spending.
 
Well that is ridiculously wrong.
Conventional weapons - Russia would fall in a week.
You are going to entrust the lives of 100s of millions people that they would not use nukes?
You wanna take that chance?
I will submit to you, that I 100% believe Russia would use one or two nukes to make a horrific point they will not fall.
This is why WW III or any wide theater war in post nuclear age must be avoided at all cost.
You don't get it. The only thing that has ever stopped Russia from using nukes is the certainty that that would be the end of them. That is still the same as always. Russia will be totally annihilated if they use nukes on us or any other country. It is suicide.
 
You don't get it. The only thing that has ever stopped Russia from using nukes is the certainty that that would be the end of them. That is still the same as always. Russia will be totally annihilated if they use nukes on us or any other country. It is suicide.
Not provably true.
Let's imagine the scene - The world is brain dead enough to start a war, with invasion of Russia. And the forces are overwhelming. Russia knows they will fall in days.
So they decide to drop a single, smallish nuke in a light/moderate populated area in Europe to make a mother of God point.
You seriously believe the U.S. is going to start a full scale nuke war over that??
No we would not. Not a chance. And Russia knows it. We would not risk mutual annihilation over one bomb drop.

and another point - never underestimate the stupidity of mankind
 
You don't get it. The only thing that has ever stopped Russia from using nukes is the certainty that that would be the end of them. That is still the same as always. Russia will be totally annihilated if they use nukes on us or any other country. It is suicide.

That can also work in Russia's favor too

If Russia got it army to half decent status and took say the Baltic republics with a sudden and overwhelming conventional invasion, would NATO risk nuclear war getting them back ?
 
That can also work in Russia's favor too

If Russia got it army to half decent status and took say the Baltic republics with a sudden and overwhelming conventional invasion, would NATO risk nuclear war getting them back ?
The risk of nuclear war only increases if the west shows weakness. We have a unique opportunity to nip Russia's imperialist goals in the bud now. All we have to do is show strength and keep arming Ukraine.
 
The US can't dictate how European countries spend their money any more than Europe can dictate US spending.
The US can leave NATO however.

The risk of nuclear war only increases if the west shows weakness. We have a unique opportunity to nip Russia's imperialist goals in the bud now. All we have to do is show strength and keep arming Ukraine.
Except in three weeks we are done.
 
The US can leave NATO however.


Except in three weeks we are done.
I hope you are wrong and Trump does not want to be the weakest President in history and a loser that he is reminded of for years of his term. The optics of a defeat for the U.S in Ukraine will be a scourge on his whole time in office with daily headlines of Russian atrocities in Ukraine culminating with Putin's victory parade down the streets of Kiev.
 
The risk of nuclear war only increases if the west shows weakness. We have a unique opportunity to nip Russia's imperialist goals in the bud now. All we have to do is show strength and keep arming Ukraine.

I disagree
The West has a lot more to lose in a nuclear war - we must bear that in mind.
 
I disagree
The West has a lot more to lose in a nuclear war - we must bear that in mind.
LOL Russia has everything to lose in a nuclear war and that is why they will never start one. That is how it has been for 75 years and it has not changed now. You think they have not started one all these years because we appeased them? Then why are we not all speaking Russian? You seem to have been born yesterday.
 
Well it can bring a lot of pressure on European countries to increase defense spending.

They will spend what they can afford and no more.
 
The USA did in 1945.


No body else had nukes

Now 9 countries hava nukes, 5 and potentially 6 have the means to launch them across the world. 2 to 3 have enough to take out most major cities in Europe, the US, Russia or China.

The others have enough to destroy the major cities of their primary threats.

No winning a nuclear war against another nuclear power just being less of a loser
 
No body else had nukes

Now 9 countries hava nukes, 5 and potentially 6 have the means to launch them across the world. 2 to 3 have enough to take out most major cities in Europe, the US, Russia or China.

The others have enough to destroy the major cities of their primary threats.

No winning a nuclear war against another nuclear power just being less of a loser

The UK doesn't have anywhere near as many as the US but we have enough to make attacking the UK not worth it.
We have enough to obliterate ten enemy cities which would cripple the economy of a couple of countries just through caring for the tens of millions of wounded that would be caused.
 
No body else had nukes

Now 9 countries hava nukes, 5 and potentially 6 have the means to launch them across the world. 2 to 3 have enough to take out most major cities in Europe, the US, Russia or China.

The others have enough to destroy the major cities of their primary threats.

No winning a nuclear war against another nuclear power just being less of a loser

No-one else having nukes and no-one else willing to use nukes are the same thing in reality.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom