• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Is there any point in keeping NATO around?

Godwynn

March to the Sea
Joined
May 17, 2003
Messages
20,509
NATO Member State Military Expenditure - Sort by GDP

Spoiler :
Country "Military expenditures (% of GDP)"
United States 4.8
United Kingdom 2.5
France 2.3
Turkey 2.3
Greece 2.1
Estonia 1.7
Poland 1.7
Bulgaria 1.55
Albania 1.5
Croatia 1.5
Norway 1.5
Portugal 1.5
Denmark 1.4
Germany 1.4
Italy 1.4
Canada 1.3
Netherlands 1.3
Romania 1.3
Slovenia 1.3
Belgium 1.1
Czech Republic 1.1
Slovakia 1.1
Hungary 1
Latvia 1
Spain 0.9
Lithuania 0.8
Luxembourg 0.5
Iceland 0.09

NATO has a guideline of 2% of GDP for military expenditures. Only five nations currently meet the guideline, with the United States way out in front. Some very large nations (Germany, Italy, Spain) are spending less than 1.5%

With a resurgent Russia in the East, should Europe be spending more on its military?

Would Europe collectively crap their pants if the United States withdrew from the alliance?
 
5 years ago I would have said "Uhm probably not", but with Russia going crazy, yeah, we should probably keep it around for the forseeable future.

Godwynn said:
With a resurgent Russia in the East, should Europe be spending more on its military?

Probably, but the reason American military spending is so high is.. well, America wants to have a global reach. That takes money. A lot of it. No other country on the planet is currently spending enough to have a global reach - nobody wants to, because it's so costly. Heck, most countries probably couldn't afford it.

So Europe should probably spend more, or at least unify it's military forces to a larger degree somehow. But I don't think it's fair to compare military spending in Europe to military spending in the U.S. - the U.S. is spending a premium to be able to have that global reach.

However, if the standard for the alliance is 2% - then every member should strive to meet that target.

Would Europe collectively crap their pants if the United States withdrew from the alliance?

Probably, but the alliance is beneficial to the U.S. as well. So this probably won't happen.
 
NATO has a guideline of 2% of GDP for military expenditures. Only five nations currently meet the guideline, with the United States way out in front. Some very large nations (Germany, Italy, Spain) are spending less than 1.5%

With a resurgent Russia in the East, should Europe be spending more on its military?
I thought the deal was that we didn't spend as much as we should on NATO, and then the US doesn't spend as much as it should on the UN? :mischief:

But more seriously, we've been letting the US do the work on this one for quite some time. We really should start carrying our own weights.

Would Europe collectively crap their pants if the United States withdrew from the alliance?
Would America collectively crap their pants if all of Europe was made part of the Russian Federation? ;)
 
We Dutch don't have any use for the NATO any longer. At the very least we ought to consider dropping out from the Unified Command Structure.
 
The purpose of NATO was keeping the European powers from participating in the modern arms race, since they had repeatedly demonstrated a unique inability to have military and not use it. In short, if the European nations are keeping their military spending down they are actually fulfilling the original purpose of NATO. So the best reason for keeping it around is that it appears to be working.
 
The purpose of NATO was keeping the European powers from participating in the modern arms race, since they had repeatedly demonstrated a unique inability to have military and not use it. In short, if the European nations are keeping their military spending down they are actually fulfilling the original purpose of NATO. So the best reason for keeping it around is that it appears to be working.

It has failed. NATO collectively went into an arms race with Russia instead. However, I don't think it is necessarily in the interest of the Netherlands to side so openly against Russia as the US wants it to do.
 
It has failed. NATO collectively went into an arms race with Russia instead. However, I don't think it is necessarily in the interest of the Netherlands to side so openly against Russia as the US wants it to do.

It worked. That arms race ended in MAD. Europe has demonstrated that their response to MAD is "okay, let's do it".
 
The purpose of NATO was keeping the European powers from participating in the modern arms race, since they had repeatedly demonstrated a unique inability to have military and not use it. In short, if the European nations are keeping their military spending down they are actually fulfilling the original purpose of NATO. So the best reason for keeping it around is that it appears to be working.
Unique?? :mischief:
 
USA should withdraw from NATO.

Europe, in turn, should increase their military spending, in order not to crap their pants.
Or make a security alliance, with participation of Russia.
Or both.
 

Pretty much.

There have been, and are, plenty of nations prone to conquest. I even live in one. But for 'hey let's start a war we can't win just because we have the tools' you need to find a European state.
 
It worked. That arms race ended in MAD. Europe has demonstrated that their response to MAD is "okay, let's do it".

No European nation has ever used nukes on another. In fact, Turkey, Germany, Italy and Poland to name a few don't even have nukes and American are nukes are stored there at best.

Pretty much.

There have been, and are, plenty of nations prone to conquest. I even live in one. But for 'hey let's start a war we can't win just because we have the tools' you need to find a European state.

We are decentralised. This means that conflicts arise now and then. Really big wars in terms of manpower (lost) often involve more than one continent. America is surrounded by weak neighbours and the sea, yet America has an amazing track record of starting unwinnable transatlantic conflicts.
 
No European nation has ever used nukes on another. In fact, Turkey, Germany, Italy and Poland to name a few don't even have nukes and American are nukes are stored there at best.

Nukes are about the only weapons Europeans haven't used on each other, and by all indications if they had had them they would have used them many times over. Countries that settled their differences with such productive solutions as "the hundred years war" probably shouldn't be counted on to demonstrate any sense.
 
The UK, France, Germany and Italy combined outspend any other country in the world with the exception of the USA. So why should Europeans spend more? To defend against a hypothetical Chinese-Russian alliance?
 
The UK, France, Germany and Italy combined outspend any other country in the world with the exception of the USA. So why should Europeans spend more? To defend against a hypothetical Chinese-Russian alliance?

The UK spends what it spends because holy cats you can't think those people trust France and Germany!
 
Nukes are about the only weapons Europeans haven't used on each other, and by all indications if they had had them they would have used them many times over. Countries that settled their differences with such productive solutions as "the hundred years war" probably shouldn't be counted on to demonstrate any sense.

As a mentioned earlier, this is explained in part because of Europe's degree of decentralisation. We have more political polities and they often certain around different kind of things than the United States. The NATO will simply not wipe away what has been built by thousands of years of history. Conflicts are something we have learned to live by.
 
As a mentioned earlier, this is explained in part because of Europe's degree of decentralisation. We have more political polities and they often certain around different kind of things than the United States. The NATO will simply not wipe away what has been built by thousands of years of history. Conflicts are something we have learned to live by.

I have no complaints. If there were some way to dome you guys in I'd be fine with the European method of problem solving.
 
The UK spends what it spends because holy cats you can't think those people trust France and Germany!

That sort of thinking at least explains Greece and Turkey being so high on the list.
 
I have no complaints. If there were some way to dome you guys in I'd be fine with the European method of problem solving.

What is the American method of problem solving? I see you have no problems with Canada and Mexico and do have problems.
 
That sort of thinking at least explains Greece and Turkey being so high on the list.

I don't think Greece and Turkey have any greater history of conflict than England and France, and I don't think anyone anywhere has a greater history of conflict than France and Germany.
 
Top Bottom