Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NATO funding thing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NATO funding thing

    What do you believe that is the result assuming all NATO countries would in some manner increase their military spending to set guideline value of 2% from the respective GDP? And i do not mean under conflict involving NATO necessitating the use of the collective defense article but under the currently existing conditions.

    If we consider the US military spending and that... http://index.heritage.org/military/2...onment/europe/ Per the above document there are just 65 000 US military personnel stationed in Europe. Of these 39 000 are US Air Force. So there ain't massive savings to be had from that without gutting US ability to operate on its own. Since increased non-US NATO spending does neither mean that they would pay for US military expenses nor does it mean that they would (need to) take part to US military operations elsewhere it is rather difficult to see how exactly the increased non-US spending would in any manner reduce US military expenses.
    It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

  • #2
    Every member pays - every member fights.
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      Every member pays - every member fights.
      To whom would they pay to? Besides assuming you referred to military spending the numbers that NATO has are only 'guidelines' or values 'aimed towards'. So they are already doing that part just fine. Not perhaps at the level USA would prefer but then again the lack of spending is not hurting US either in the current situation.

      And why would they need to fight if treaty article with regards to collective defense is not used?
      It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
        To whom would they pay to? Besides assuming you referred to military spending the numbers that NATO has are only 'guidelines' or values 'aimed towards'. So they are already doing that part just fine. Not perhaps at the level USA would prefer but then again the lack of spending is not hurting US either in the current situation.

        And why would they need to fight if treaty article with regards to collective defense is not used?
        NATO. The organization itself needs operational funds, just like the UN, and just like the UN, the bulk of those funds are paid by America.

        What hurts America is the lack of combat troops when problems arise. That's why I say "everybody fights". No more of this sending a battalion of clerks and cooks, such as happened during the Gulf War.

        And no need whatsoever for American forces in Europe. That is a European issue and the Euros can defend themselves, totally.

        Think of it this way - if you need help, do you expect America to come to your aid? Why?
        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          NATO. The organization itself needs operational funds, just like the UN, and just like the UN, the bulk of those funds are paid by America.
          Not really. http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news...plained-trump/ NATO budget is about 1.7 B$ (military & civilian budgets combined). Which would make it roughly 0.3% of the US military budget (~ 597 B$) if the USA had to 'shoulder' that 'burden' all by it self. However USA pays just 22% of that (so less than 0.1% of current US military spending). And all members have made their payments properly.
          What hurts America is the lack of combat troops when problems arise. That's why I say "everybody fights". No more of this sending a battalion of clerks and cooks, such as happened during the Gulf War.
          Increased military spending doesn't actually necessitate increased number of combat troops. It might. And it should. But it may not. But why would they be deployed? Keep in mind that you are already moving towards a situation where collective defense articles would have been used.
          And no need whatsoever for American forces in Europe. That is a European issue and the Euros can defend themselves, totally.
          Problem is that previous administrations already pulled away pretty much everything that wasn't nailed on, and then sold off most that was. So there really ain't much to go on. Assuming you want to retain something US troops further away tend to need - logistics.
          Think of it this way - if you need help, do you expect America to come to your aid? Why?
          To be frank, no. I really do not.
          It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

          Comment


          • #6
            "Twenty-three of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should," Trump told heads of NATO states assembled Thursday in Brussels. "Many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years."


            Only five of NATO's 28 members -- the U.S., Greece, Poland, Estonia and the U.K. -- meet the 2% target.
            The rest lag behind. Germany is set to spend 1.2% of GDP on defense this year, France 1.79%. Belgium, Spain and Luxembourg all spend less than 1%.

            The North Atlantic alliance has its own military budget worth €1.29 billion ($1.4 billion), which is used to fund some operations and the NATO strategic command center, as well as training and research. But it is miniscule compared to overall spending on defense by NATO countries, which NATO estimates will total more than $921 billion in 2017.


            The alliance also has a civilian budget of €234.4 million ($252 million), used mainly to fund the NATO headquarters in Belgium, and its administration.
            http://www.erienewsnow.com/story/355...-who-pays-what

            Guess who is expected to make up the difference.
            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

            Comment


            • #7
              Embarrassing..... Simply embarrassing.

              http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...o-money-238882

              President Donald Trump early Saturday tweeted that NATO countries have “agreed to step up payments” and “money is beginning to pour in” following his contentious meeting with leaders of the western alliance during his ongoing foreign trip.

              “Many NATO countries have agreed to step up payments considerably, as they should. Money is beginning to pour in- NATO will be much stronger,” he tweeted.
              No Mr President, money is not rolling in. Members are not making payments....

              '
              “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
              “To talk of many things:
              Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
              Of cabbages—and kings—
              And why the sea is boiling hot—
              And whether pigs have wings.”
              ― Lewis Carroll

              Comment


              • #8
                Indeed, it cracks me up how peeps never seem to grasp that the agreement of "2% of GDP" is not some ratio to fund NATO itself...

                The agreement is/was that each member should spend 2% of their GDP on their own individual military such that there actually is a reasonable military capability maintained by each individual member State. The logic & goal of that in terms of Article 5 & otherwise is such that each member can, not only, actually provide a reasonable defense of their own for themselves, but also be able to reasonably live up to actual Article 5 military needs should it be invoked.


                On the Plains of Hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions who, at the dawn of victory, sat down to rest-and resting... died. Adlai E. Stevenson

                ACG History Today

                BoRG

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
                  If we consider the US military spending and that... http://index.heritage.org/military/2...onment/europe/ Per the above document there are just 65 000 US military personnel stationed in Europe. Of these 39 000 are US Air Force....
                  How many of the Member States in Europe even have that many men in their active-duty military, at all?
                  "Why is the Rum gone?"

                  -Captain Jack

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
                    To whom would they pay to? Besides assuming you referred to military spending the numbers that NATO has are only 'guidelines' or values 'aimed towards'. So they are already doing that part just fine. Not perhaps at the level USA would prefer but then again the lack of spending is not hurting US either in the current situation.

                    And why would they need to fight if treaty article with regards to collective defense is not used?
                    To whom should they pay ?
                    That's easy .From whence do most US allies obtain much of their weaponry ?
                    F35s for all.
                    "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                    Samuel Johnson.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      http://www.erienewsnow.com/story/355...-who-pays-what

                      Guess who is expected to make up the difference.
                      Of the part you highlighted? It amounts to pretty much to a rounding error in the average US military budget. Besides i already included that civilian budget to the NATO military budget. The sum of which still just around 1.7 B$.... You do notice that it is about hundreds of millions not hundreds of billions?



                      Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                      How many of the Member States in Europe even have that many men in their active-duty military, at all?
                      Quite a few actually. Do keep in mind that Netherlands has about that many men in active duty.



                      Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
                      To whom should they pay ?
                      That's easy .From whence do most US allies obtain much of their weaponry ?
                      F35s for all.
                      Actually they mostly use domestic or European products. So despite of the exception that exists in the form of F-35 the answer would not be USA.
                      Last edited by Vaeltaja; 28 May 17, 01:05.
                      It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
                        Of the part you highlighted? It amounts to pretty much to a rounding error in the average US military budget. Besides i already included that civilian budget to the NATO military budget. The sum of which still just around 1.7 B$.... You do notice that it is about hundreds of millions not hundreds of billions?




                        Quite a few actually. Do keep in mind that Netherlands has about that many men in active duty.




                        Actually they mostly use domestic or European products. So despite of the exception that exists in the form of F-35 the answer would not be USA.
                        Finland is a PfP member of NATO.

                        Finland is not a full member of NATO.

                        Wes (Admiral) answered your question with facts. You didn't reply to his post which clearly shows that you are not interested in facts.

                        You are trolling, why?
                        "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                          Finland is a PfP member of NATO.

                          Finland is not a full member of NATO.
                          Did i claim otherwise? Besides it wouldn't really matter in case the excrement were to hit the air-conditioning. Even if Finland was part of NATO i wouldn't really expect US/NATO help to arrive - or rather i wouldn't expect it to arrive in time. But it is nice to hope that it would.

                          As is written on UNESCO World Heritage site wall... Eftervard... ...lita icke på främmande hielp - of course Swedes are our 'cousins' so they are excepted as being 'främmande' in that.
                          Wes (Admiral) answered your question with facts. You didn't reply to his post which clearly shows that you are not interested in facts.
                          You really should refrain from lying and from fabricating nonsense - you are rather bad at it. Since you clearly are interested: I didn't reply to his post simply because it mirrors my opinions perfectly.


                          However I wasn't aware that it was mandatory for your bookkeeping for me to post some sort of notice of that. I must have missed that part of the forum rules
                          You are trolling...
                          You clearly have plenty of personal experience from doing that.


                          But this is really cool. I have never had my very own internet-perskärpänen (~stalker) before.
                          It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
                            Of the part you highlighted? It amounts to pretty much to a rounding error in the average US military budget. Besides i already included that civilian budget to the NATO military budget. The sum of which still just around 1.7 B$.... You do notice that it is about hundreds of millions not hundreds of billions?




                            Quite a few actually. Do keep in mind that Netherlands has about that many men in active duty.




                            Actually they mostly use domestic or European products. So despite of the exception that exists in the form of F-35 the answer would not be USA.
                            On the last point most NATO countries use US built fighter aircraft, even the UK will be once the F35b is operational. Think the only ones that won't use a significant number of US combat aircraft will be France and Germany.
                            "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I think the 20% spending on new equipment procurement is more important than the 2% of GDP thingy.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X