Try to convince me that President Trump is not right about Nato

So if all of NATO pays 2% of their gdp towards their militaries how much is Trump proposing cutting the US’s military budget by?

If the answer to that is “He isn’t planning on cutting the military’s budget regardless of what NATO does”, then the entire argument is just disingenuous.

NATO has until 2024 to meet their spending requirements. Trump is flat wrong.

 

The only way your logic stands up is if all US military spending is going towards the defense of NATO.

Pray tell, how does having nuclear carrier groups in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea defend NATO?

The amount of spending for NATO’s shared assets is based on population. The US pays 22% because our population alone is 22% of NATO.

Beyond that, we have severely cut down our forces in Europe for decades even while the Europeans have drawn down their military spending. It isn’t like we’ve been surging troops to Europe to make up for their shortfalls.

 

The only one who can convince you on anything is a faux tv anchor/pundit.

 

President Trump is evil for running afoul of euro-cucks.


(g-7 photo here, but you get the idea)

 

You have any idea of how massive of an incompetent **** up you have to be to get a Japanese Prime Minister to show that much open disdain in front of cameras?

 

NATO funding percentages are based on population. You are the one claiming it’s ridiculous that the nation that has 22% of NATO’s population pays 22% of the costs.

 

Threat assessment is a better way to look at it. Cyber attacks on our elections is a disruption and more likely to happen than a general war, but the consequences are not nearly as severe as a general war.

We need to be prepared for both. If it came down to us supporting NATO disproportionaly like we are doing now, we should consider walking away.

 

I can find nothing that says NATO funding is based on population. As a guideline, NATO countries are supposed to pay 2% of their GDP. Few nations except the US and a handful more meet that goal.

As a practical matter, Europe gains more from NATO than we do and, if anything, they should be paying more.

 

Correction: Funding for NATO’s shared equipment (IE the money each nation pays to NATO directly) is based on Gross National Income:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_67655.htm

Is it unreasonable that the country that makes up 22% of the NATO’s total GNI pays 22% of NATO’s shared costs?

The 2% GDP military spending goal (and it is just a goal, not a fixed mandate) doesn’t go into effect until 2024. The nations of NATO still have 6 years to meet that goal.

 

And if 3/4 of our military was dedicated to NATO defense and not “protecting US interests” all over the planet that have nothing to do with NATO, then your argument would have logical standing.

Let me ask, how much are you suggesting we cut our military budget by if NATO meets its 2% spending agreement? If the answer is zero, then the amount we spend on our military is just a red herring. We are going to spend that much regardless of what NATO does or doesn’t do.

 

I am not sure where you are going. A while ago you were referring to population. If our GDP or GNI, whichever is used, is equal to 22% of the total GDP or GNI or NATO countries, it sounds reasonable. However, you count it, we are paying for more of NATO than other countries, especially when you consider the benefits.

 

That’s not accurate though because a large portion of the US military budget go to things that have NOTHING do to with NATO’s defense.

We write a check to NATO for 22% because we make up 22% of NATO’s total GNI. How is that unreasonable? How about the fact that the 22% comes out to less than 1/6th of what we pay to Israel, who we have ZERO alliances with, every year?

 

We are paying more because we can afford to pay more. Germany, France, and the UK don’t pay much less than us because they likewise can afford it.

 

The US is paying 3.6% of GDP. Germany, 1.2%, France 1.8%, UK 2.2%. How is that not much less for Germany and France?

 

Why do you keep changing the topic?

Are we talking about money paid to NATO based on GNI or the 2024 2% GDP spending goal?

 

No, we make up 22% of NATO’s GNI because when you take all the GNI’s of every country in NATO and combine them, the US GNI makes up 22%.

Is that easy enough for you to understand or should I break out crayons?

What value does US carrier groups in the Indian Ocean or South China Sea have to NATO?

Why do any other countries in NATO need anything like the naval striking power the US CHOOSES to have? What serious naval threat is there to Europe?

 

How was that changing the topic? You said "Germany, France, and the UK don’t pay much less than us because they likewise can afford it". I pointed out that they are paying considerably less than us.

As far as I am concerned there is only one subject in this thread. We are paying disproportionately for NATO and Trump is trying to do something about it.

 

And I was talking about direct NATO contributions which are based on GNI and you deflected to NATO’s 2024 2% GDP militaryspending goals.

Why do you keep selectively quoting my posts? Have a problem with intellectual honesty?

We are most definitely NOT paying disproportionately for NATO. If you are talking about direct contributions, we are directly proportional to our GNI and so is the rest of NATO.

If you are talking about money spent on NATO’s defense, only 30 billion of the US defense budget goes towards that compared to 250 billion on the part of the rest of NATO.

 

I dont know if he is flat wrong but you have a good point.

 

Show me in terms of GDP or GNI for us and the other countries, which is how the funding is set up. Based on what I see from GDP, we are funding disproportionately.

BTW. I use GDP because that is how most of the data is presented.