Should US leave NATO?

[TT2025]

Don't forget to account, for the origin of the NATO weapons systems I suppose it is dominated by the US.. So when European NATO member buys equipment what percentage of that is channelled back to US military industrial complex? 

And really.. compare Albania's contribution to the country with largest nominal GDP on the planet is bit off.

USA is now acting as a mother in law with PMS... 🙂 

[BootmanLA]

On 3/5/2025 at 11:37 AM, Eastvillagefun said:

Just a few things to consider with NATO funding. Member contributions are calculated as a % of GDP (makes sense, right?). The target worked is 2%. The US does contribute more than that, butt not the highest. Poland and Estonia each contribute a higher percentage. Some countries are below 2%.

Also keep in mind that the US is the only country to have actually invoked Article 5, and received NATO support in a military action after an attack (in response to the 9/11 attack.)

The first part of that is incorrect.

The 2% of GDP is not for "member contributions". It's what each member of NATO is asked (with no enforcement mechanism) to spend on defense. That means if a country has a GDP of 100 billion, it's expected to spend 2 billion of that on "defense" - which includes all of its military spending. It's not a contribution made to some account at NATO.

The US looks "good" under this standard only because we spend such a large portion of our GDP on our military, most of which goes to military contractors supplying weapons and material, a substantial portion of which we can't seem to even track.

"Member contributions" are a separate assessment actually DOES pay into an account at NATO, because something has to pay for its overhead. But that is nowhere near 2% of any nation's GDP.

[BootmanLA]

On 3/4/2025 at 6:19 PM, nanana said:

One bonus question: when did Demos and RINOs decide it was prudent to jettison Washington’s advice about entangling alliances or Quincy Adams’ advice not to go overseas for monsters to destroy?”

Washington gave that advice at a time when the Atlantic Ocean isolated the United States from all of Europe, when an invading army would require weeks in ships to get to us (although Britain did come through Canada once). With the advent of ships powered other than by wind or oars, with the invention of airplanes and aircraft carriers and missiles and the like, we are no longer physically isolated from adversaries,

We operated for almost a century and a half on the premise that we didn't really need "alliances" because we had only two borders to defend and we were far stronger, economically and militarily, than either. We still got dragged into WWI because one side in that war insisted on attacking our non-military shipping.

Then we found out, in 1941, that our vaunted physical isolation didn't really protect us nearly as much as we thought given the destruction wrought at Pearl Harbor. 

And even once we established military supremacy over pretty much every other fighting force on earth, 9/11 showed us that it was still possible for enemies to inflict massive damage on us.

This isn't to say a lot of our "adventuring" wasn't a big factor in these things happening. We made a lot of enemies throwing our weight around. But the answer isn't "retreat from all alliances" but "stop trying to meddle so much in other countries' basic affairs". 

[Eastvillagefun]

30 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

The first part of that is incorrect.

The 2% of GDP is not for "member contributions". 

I'm sorry I conflated the two. It was an oversimplification on my part and you are correct in calling that out. It seems we are in agreement regardless

[Eastvillagefun]

23 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

This isn't to say a lot of our "adventuring" wasn't a big factor in these things happening. We made a lot of enemies throwing our weight around. But the answer isn't "retreat from all alliances" but "stop trying to meddle so much in other countries' basic affairs". 

I'd also point out the irony that our current isolationist administration is also leaning strength into neocolonialism. I'm sure that will end we'll and will be fine. I can't see any potential downside in that one.