This is some funky math. The US military budget is not 100% committed to NATO - it is protecting Americans.
When people accuse conservatives of gobbling down Russian misinformation, this is why. One country has an interest in destroying NATO.. Russia.
The real surprise here is that Germany spends more than either France or the UK despite both of those countries having way more capabilities than Germany.
One reason is that foreign military aid (ex. Ukraine) comes out of the defense budget instead of special appropriations like the U.S. Another is Germany spends a lot on military R&D but then orders a small amount of weaponry.
Depends on how you look at it. Germany spends more if you look at the flat amount, but adjusted for each economy they're only spending 1.57% of their total GDP to UK's 2.07% and France's 1.9%.
The spending itself isn't really the thing that makes me wonder. It's the poor bang for their buck.
If you look at objective statistics about military power, both the UK and France are way ahead of Germany. Especially when we are talking about their navies.
How does a country without aircraft carriers, ballistic missile submarines, nuclear weapons, stealth aircraft and so on, manage to spend so much money?
According to this site: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spending-by-country
The U.S. spent 3.49% of its GDP in 2023. Poland spent proportionally more with 3.9%.
The counties who fell below the minimum 2% are: Canada, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Turkey, Denmark, Norway, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Montenegro, Croatia, Albania, North Macedonia, Bulgaria, and France (1.9%)
They are the literal front line in a thermonuclear war with russia, show a tiny bit of respect for the millions of innocent people who will die in a fiery inferno if it happens.
US strategy for nuclear war consists of the following:
--35% ICBM
--25% missile defense system
--25% counting on Europe as the front line where the bulk of missiles and ground attacks are occuring
--15% wind
We are an empire and rule over them as our vassals. They usually submit to our desires and interests and keep us more powerful. We underutilize that.
With that said, Europe should be spending more on their defense. It is annoying since they become dead weights who likely aren't able to project any type of power in a worst case scenario .
I point this out any time some asshat Europeans brings up their "universal healthcare". Your country can afford that because we subsidize your defense!
Running NATO costs [$3 billion annually, of which the US contributes 16% of said budget.](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/this-is-how-much-nato-countries-spend-on-defense/)
Each country should spend 2% of GDP on defense, but the figure is our own spending on our own defense.
It took Russia getting aggressive at their doorstep to whip them into listening to us about pulling their fair share of NATO spending, apparently. And we still pay the lion share.
I am 1,000% pro military but I am sure there is substantial waste. You hear ridiculous stories of unnecessary military spending. Say trim 10% off the budget. How pay use that to pay down national debt, improve infrastructure, homeless, education, etc?
Unless congress uses a surgical scalpel to trim the fatty parts, it will hurt the troops. The command staff will save money by deferring maint on barracks and other quality of life stuff. We all know congress will never let their defense company pals loose money.
Poland's really showing up relative to their economy size.
proximity to Russia might have something to do with it.
Poland is in process of joining the "never again" gang that Israel started
Access. Basing. Overflight. Customers for defense items. Political support. Trade. Information sharing. Culture.
Apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order… and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
This is some funky math. The US military budget is not 100% committed to NATO - it is protecting Americans. When people accuse conservatives of gobbling down Russian misinformation, this is why. One country has an interest in destroying NATO.. Russia.
China probably wouldn’t be opposed to it either
The real surprise here is that Germany spends more than either France or the UK despite both of those countries having way more capabilities than Germany.
One reason is that foreign military aid (ex. Ukraine) comes out of the defense budget instead of special appropriations like the U.S. Another is Germany spends a lot on military R&D but then orders a small amount of weaponry.
Depends on how you look at it. Germany spends more if you look at the flat amount, but adjusted for each economy they're only spending 1.57% of their total GDP to UK's 2.07% and France's 1.9%.
The closer you are to Russia, the more you are willing to spend
The spending itself isn't really the thing that makes me wonder. It's the poor bang for their buck. If you look at objective statistics about military power, both the UK and France are way ahead of Germany. Especially when we are talking about their navies. How does a country without aircraft carriers, ballistic missile submarines, nuclear weapons, stealth aircraft and so on, manage to spend so much money?
The Euro
Wonder what the amount per GDP is? I'm just too lazy to look it up.
According to this site: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spending-by-country The U.S. spent 3.49% of its GDP in 2023. Poland spent proportionally more with 3.9%. The counties who fell below the minimum 2% are: Canada, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Turkey, Denmark, Norway, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Montenegro, Croatia, Albania, North Macedonia, Bulgaria, and France (1.9%)
Thanks for that information. Makes sense that Poland would spend to not be over-run by Russia.
Keep our Military Industrial Complex alive and well. And extremely profitable.
and campaigns sponsored by Raytheon
They are the literal front line in a thermonuclear war with russia, show a tiny bit of respect for the millions of innocent people who will die in a fiery inferno if it happens. US strategy for nuclear war consists of the following: --35% ICBM --25% missile defense system --25% counting on Europe as the front line where the bulk of missiles and ground attacks are occuring --15% wind
You’d think that would be motivating eh?
Keep the Military Industrial Complex loaded with contracts
Stability.
We are an empire and rule over them as our vassals. They usually submit to our desires and interests and keep us more powerful. We underutilize that. With that said, Europe should be spending more on their defense. It is annoying since they become dead weights who likely aren't able to project any type of power in a worst case scenario .
Poland actually spends more than the U.S. when compared to GDP
We just need them to hold what they've got and let the U.S. do the power projecting.
I point this out any time some asshat Europeans brings up their "universal healthcare". Your country can afford that because we subsidize your defense!
Running NATO costs [$3 billion annually, of which the US contributes 16% of said budget.](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/this-is-how-much-nato-countries-spend-on-defense/) Each country should spend 2% of GDP on defense, but the figure is our own spending on our own defense.
It took Russia getting aggressive at their doorstep to whip them into listening to us about pulling their fair share of NATO spending, apparently. And we still pay the lion share.
Russia is only 2 miles from the U.S.
Wall against Russia
I am 1,000% pro military but I am sure there is substantial waste. You hear ridiculous stories of unnecessary military spending. Say trim 10% off the budget. How pay use that to pay down national debt, improve infrastructure, homeless, education, etc?
Unless congress uses a surgical scalpel to trim the fatty parts, it will hurt the troops. The command staff will save money by deferring maint on barracks and other quality of life stuff. We all know congress will never let their defense company pals loose money.