US versus NATO

[Infanteer]

A few thoughts:

1.  The relationship is more than just "America pays to defend Europe."  There is some quid pro quo: I've heard senior US military officials state that the U.S. political/strategic center of gravity is its allies and the access they bring.  Yes, the U.S. bears a large proportion of NATO's defense, but in return for this it is supplied the access by allies that it needs and wants to enable it to maintain its global presence.

2.  Of course, global presence may not be what the current administration cares for.  If that's so, then maybe countries like Germany are better off saying adieu to U.S. forces, even if they only move to Poland, and through limiting engagement reducing the ability to get politically browbeaten.

3.  Is 2% even a realistic or required norm in the post-Cold War World?  Most countries sought their peace dividend and cut defence budgets as the Soviet threat is gone.  Does Europe even require 2%?  The Russian Army cannot reasonably be expected to project itself too far into Europe.  The U.S. only took a partial peace dividend, and then invaded Iraq.  As was indicated earlier, EU countries outspend Russia (the only real threat), Europe possesses a nuclear deterrent with France and the UK.

4.  The real reason, it seems to me, that the U.S. has tolerated under-spenders for the last 30 years is that it was the price to pay for continuing to lead the bench.  If the current administration casts off the collective defence paradigm that has governed the West since the 1940s, then US engagement and reach would be curtailed and the ability for the U.S. to influence decision making is reduced.  New defensive arrangements would be crafted and perhaps Germany would seek its own nuclear deterrent.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

So say America pulls out of NATO and the EU has to sort out Eurocorps as something other than a double-counted continental NATO force, and that America total removes all forces from NATO countries.  How does America now address the issue of infrastructure for global force projection?  Looks like POTUS will have to push for, and Congress auth a few more CVTFs?

NATO loses a few more member states when Vlad recovers a few more Baltic states, things settle when USSR(-) has its pre-Clinton buffer back and we’re back to the alertly 90s.  America is off on its own taking on the next Iraq/Iran/N.Korea(when things don’t work out), and begins to feel the pain that the Portuguese, then Dutch, then Spanish, then French, then British get as their respective Empires waned into hegemonic obscurity.

Critically (adversarially) thinking/questioning for a moment: Just because the rest of the world doesn’t want to fill the cracks in America’s ~4% GDP spend on military supported hegemony with their own 2% GDP (itself a poorly qualified requirement) antes, does that mean that they’re all wrong?

???

Regards
G2G

Hey Portugal fought on doggedly until 1974.  Ironically, it was there military and its leadership that finally told the government "no more"

8)

 

[PPCLI Guy]

3.  Is 2% even a realistic or required norm in the post-Cold War World?  Most countries sought their peace dividend and cut defence budgets as the Soviet threat is gone.  Does Europe even require 2%? 

It is worth noting that US military spending is achieved not so much through economic output as it is by borrowing.  With military spending this year at just shy of $700B, it is interesting to note that the deficit is expected to be $833B.  In other words, the US has had to borrow money (and quite a bit of it from China) in order to purchase and maintain their overwhelming advantage in military power.

So, given the state of the global economy, from whom exactly does the US expect other Western countries to borrow the money from to pay for military power?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

It is worth noting that US military spending is achieved not so much through economic output as it is by borrowing.  With military spending this year at just shy of $700B, it is interesting to note that the deficit is expected to be $833B.  In other words, the US has had to borrow money (and quite a bit of it from China) in order to purchase and maintain their overwhelming advantage in military power.

So, given the state of the global economy, from whom exactly does the US expect other Western countries to borrow the money from to pay for military power?

This is a valid point but it should also be noted that the United States has some of the lowest taxes in the OECD.  26% as a share of GDP compared to the OECD average of 34%.  The US Government is near the bottom when it comes to taxes amongst developed countries.

The United States could easily implement a "National Defence & Homeland Security" tax and erase that deficit but there is no will or imperative to do so.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally

 

[dapaterson]

There is also the question of how you count.  US defence expenditures include the Coast Guard, Veterans' benefits, veteran health care, family health care, employer pension contributions...

Add those elements in, which are accounted for separately in Canada, and Canada's expenditures increase by about 35% (very rough math).

 

[Brad Sallows]

As long as a deficit exists, it means the US has to borrow money to pay for everything.  A quick glance at 2015 figures showed me that discretionary spending was just under 30% of federal spending, and military spending was just under 54% of discretionary spending.  The military share of the deficit is about $135B.  And it looks like a little under 1/3 of total federal debt is held by foreigners.  So the competition for foreign sugar daddies is not as bad as it might seem at a glance.

If the US opts to reduce its spending - particularly money spent keeping US forces abroad, which would suit Trump - rather than increase taxes or borrowing, will any of the so-called freeloading countries care enough to raise their spending to fill whatever gaps they deplore?

 

[tomahawk6]

As long as the economy is doing good we can afford our own defense due to an increase in taxes.Its one thing to pay for defense its another thing to have the will to use their armed forces.France,Denmark , Canada  and the newer NATO stateshave shown the will.

 

[FJAG]

I think the President feels that Europe should pay their share of their own defense.This isn't a new problem,just one that this President will stand up for NATO even if they wont.We are rotating forces into Europa at no small cost to the US taxpayer.I think the East Europeans are more than willing to provide for their defense to avoid the Russians.

https://www.stripes.com/news/europe/us-assessing-cost-of-keeping-troops-in-germany-as-trump-battles-with-europe-1.535477

France, Britain, Germany and Italy collectively already spend 2 1/2 times as much as their major enemy Russia. When will America be satisfied?

The point of an alliance is not so much to get your allies to ramp up their spending to an unnecessary level but to create a united front of collective resources which would make it foolish for an adversary to attack.

The current administration's rhetoric once again ignores reality to cater to an uninformed base's prejudices. But don't worry. Trump's meeting with Putin next month and I'm sure this time Trump's will throw in for free the reduction of EUCOM to nil strength so that he can use the manpower to create Space Force. op:

[cheers]

 

[Brad Sallows]

>France, Britain, Germany and Italy collectively already spend 2 1/2 times as much as their major enemy Russia.

That suggests to me that NATO should lower its %GDP commitment target for members to about 1%.  An agreement on what spending is relevant (ie. how to measure it) should also be struck (regardless whether or not it is nominally part of whatever passes for a nation's war/defence ministry), so that reporters and talking heads and armchair quarterbacks (like me) have some meaningful numbers to write down on the heads of our pins.

 

[Altair]

>France, Britain, Germany and Italy collectively already spend 2 1/2 times as much as their major enemy Russia.

That suggests to me that NATO should lower its %GDP commitment target for members to about 1%.  An agreement on what spending is relevant (ie. how to measure it) should also be struck (regardless whether or not it is nominally part of whatever passes for a nation's war/defence ministry), so that reporters and talking heads and armchair quarterbacks (like me) have some meaningful numbers to write down on the heads of our pins.

1 percent in peace,  2 percent or more in war?

 

[Edward Campbell]

1 percent in peace,  2 percent or more in war?

It likely depends on with whom you are at war, doesn't it?

2% might be fine if you're invading Grenada or Panama, but I doubt that 2% will suffice to regain the Baltic states if Putin gambles that he can reincorporate them into Russia at a low cost.

And 2%, even 4% is not going to cut it if you decide to go to war with China ... think more like 20%.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Trump did not create the 2% GDP as a figure, it's been around for a long time and as I recall was agreed upon by NATO as a collective solution. Every state waste money on the military, as they use procurement for domestic political issues. In a perfect world, each ally would focus on producing equipment mainly in one area and everyone else buys it. That is good for the bank account, but bad politics.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Trump did not create the 2% GDP as a figure, it's been around for a long time and as I recall was agreed upon by NATO as a collective solution. Every state waste money on the military, as they use procurement for domestic political issues. In a perfect world, each ally would focus on producing equipment mainly in one area and everyone else buys it. That is good for the bank account, but bad politics.

Many very good economists will tell you that, in a proper, rational world, every penny spent on the military is a waste. The 'need' for a military is an admission that policy and politics have broken down or didn't work well enough in the first place. Spending good, hard earned money on weapons is inherently inefficient ~ it's something that e.g. Eisenhower understood when he developed both the trip-wire and MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) strategies. He saw wall-to-wall armies as a waste because he wanted to build refrigerators, TVs and cars, not tanks and submarines.

 

[Altair]

Many very good economists will tell you that, in a proper, rational world, every penny spent on the military is a waste. The 'need' for a military is an admission that policy and politics have broken down or didn't work well enough in the first place. Spending good, hard earned money on weapons is inherently inefficient ~ it's something that e.g. Eisenhower understood when he developed both the trip-wire and MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) strategies. He saw wall-to-wall armies as a waste because he wanted to build refrigerators, TVs and cars, not tanks and submarines.

The EU and Canada should simply make a new benchmark number,instead of using one from decades ago.

Lets renegotiate NATO. Works so well for America on everything else.

New number, 1.4 percent of GDP. Oh look, almost everyone is close to that, problem solved.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The EU and Canada should simply make a new benchmark number,instead of using one from decades ago.

Lets renegotiate NATO. Works so well for America on everything else.

New number, 1.4 percent of GDP. Oh look, almost everyone is close to that, problem solved.

It took them decades to agree on the 2% number. If they can't get that right, and follow their own policies, then NATO hasn't got much hope as a collective defense arrangement, and they should pull pole on that side show....

Which is what Putin is betting on, of course, and why Trump is kicking a$$.

 

[Altair]

It took them decades to agree on the 2% number. If they can't get that right, and follow their own policies, then NATO hasn't got much hope as a collective defense arrangement, and they should pull pole on that side show....

Which is what Putin is betting on, of course, and why Trump is kicking a$$.

If throwing a temper tantrum and saying that he will take his toys and go home, undermining the alliance altogether is kicking @ss, yes, yes he is.

Shame it's Americas @ss.

Either way, I can guarantee you, Putin is pleased with this. A great return on investment if you think about it.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The EU and Canada should simply make a new benchmark number,instead of using one from decades ago.

Lets renegotiate NATO. Works so well for America on everything else.

New number, 1.4 percent of GDP. Oh look, almost everyone is close to that, problem solved.

That is suggesting that every country, and even NATO itself, is *ready* to go with the level of equipment, training and personnel they have now. 

Having worked in NATO TFs, I'm going to suggest we are not - ASW is the easy example for me to use.  If Russia, for example, deploys 1 nuc boat, how many assets are required to locate and track that redboat 24/7?  If Russia deploys 10, or 15, boats at once, can NATO handle that?  How about if you remove the US from NATO?  That is a sizeable portion of NATO sub-surface assets gone - not only in numbers but in operational capability per boat.  Even if, say, the Astute class boats are very capable, there are also very few of them compared to Improved LAs, Virgina's and Seawolfs.

Tossing numbers and %s around means nothing, really.  What matters where it counts is capabilities and the ability for all the different countries of NATO to effectively fight as a collective organization.  That ability to fight is the deterrent to nations like Russia or China, who have capabilities in the air, surface and sub-surface and space.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/world/asia/19china.html

:2c:

 

[Altair]

That is suggesting that every country, and even NATO itself, is *ready* to go with the level of equipment, training and personnel they have now. 

Having worked in NATO TFs, I'm going to suggest we are not - ASW is the easy example for me to use.  If Russia, for example, deploys 1 nuc boat, how many assets are required to locate and track that redboat 24/7?  If Russia deploys 10, or 15, boats at once, can NATO handle that?  How about if you remove the US from NATO?  That is a sizeable portion of NATO sub-surface assets gone - not only in numbers but in operational capability per boat.  Even if, say, the Astute class boats are very capable, there are also very few of them compared to Improved LAs, Virgina's and Seawolfs.

Tossing numbers and %s around means nothing, really.  What matters where it counts is capabilities and the ability for all the different countries of NATO to effectively fight as a collective organization.  That ability to fight is the deterrent to nations like Russia or China, who have capabilities in the air, surface and sub-surface and space.

:2c:

NATO without the US would still handle Russia rather easily. Biggest problem there might be Europe running low on ammo, as they did during the Libya bombing campaign, but that is a relatively easy fix.

Would NATO be as formidable without the USA, especially outside of Europe, no, no it would not. Which is probably what Putin is playing for, and in honesty, America is playing right into his hand.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

NATO without the US would still handle Russia rather easily.

I don't agree with you.  But I'd like to see why you think this, and is this your belief in all aspects of the battlespace?  (land, air, sea, space, cyber)

 

[daftandbarmy]

NATO without the US would still handle Russia rather easily. Biggest problem there might be Europe running low on ammo, as they did during the Libya bombing campaign, but that is a relatively easy fix.

Would NATO be as formidable without the USA, especially outside of Europe, no, no it would not. Which is probably what Putin is playing for, and in honesty, America is playing right into his hand.

NATO, without the US, would be Europe 1938.