- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/4/25 at 8:53 am to stout
That little NATO meme is false. That's total defense budget, not just NATO.
Posted on 3/4/25 at 8:54 am to Flats
quote:
The facts are that we're bearing an inordinate share of a big-arse military insurance policy.
This applies to a lot more than just NATO
Proportionally, I bet if we just look at defense spending in/around Europe our % of GDP would be proportionate to most of NATO spending sub 2.0%
We can't pretend our spending in Asia, the ME, South America, Africa, Oceania, etc. should count towards out "NATO spending", if we're trying to calculate (project?) our "operational costs" within NATO specifically.
Posted on 3/4/25 at 8:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We're not "funding" NATO...well in any meaningful way.
NATO operations are miniscule.
We're funding our actual military
This is wrong. Sure, the NATO operational budget is relatively small, around $4 billion per year. But a large portion of the United States "defense" budget is spent in Europe, and around the world, for the defense of NATO and other allies.
The United States has 128 military bases in 48 countries. This is not funding "our" military. This is providing defense and regional stability around the world.
We can debate whether that is good or bad for the United States, but the idea that our near trillion dollar defense budget is just some normal funding U.S. defense is silly.
Posted on 3/4/25 at 8:56 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Proportionally, I bet if we just look at defense spending in/around Europe our % of GDP would be proportionate to most of NATO spending sub 2.0%
That's bullshite, because all of those assets that we have outside of Europe are still part of the insurance policy. We don't firewall our military power like that.
Posted on 3/4/25 at 8:57 am to Lakeboy7
quote:
Can’t EO out of treaty.
You can with NATO.
The Senate is required to make treaties. It's not required to break them. Plus, NATO is a foreign affairs function, not a treaty between the US and another nation. Prior presidents have taken us out of similar agreements. Art II gives foreign affairs stuff to el presidente. Formally, all that's required is for Trump to say 'we're leaving' and that's it.
In the last NDAA they put in a provision saying the president cannot unilaterally remove us from NATO and that 2/3 of the senate is required for this move. It's not constitutional though as alluded to above. That provision in the NDAA was sponsored by a Dem and Marco Rubio.
Even without leaving Trump can neuter NATO and render it toothless. He can pull out of everything related to NATO. Send no people, participate in no exercises, etc.
Posted on 3/4/25 at 8:57 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We can't pretend our spending in Asia, the ME, South America, Africa, Oceania, etc. should count towards out "NATO spending"
Why not? Just who do you think we would be defending NATO from?
The main threats come from the Middle East, Russia and China. Having operational abilities in those areas is directly related to NATO.
Posted on 3/4/25 at 8:58 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
But a large portion of the United States "defense" budget is spent in Europe, and around the world, for the defense of NATO and other allies.
The United States has 128 military bases in 48 countries. This is not funding "our" military. This is providing defense and regional stability around the world.
In these 2 sentences you shifted "NATO spending" to "worldwide spending", just FWIW.
quote:
We can debate whether that is good or bad for the United States, but the idea that our near trillion dollar defense budget is just some normal funding U.S. defense is silly.
I clearly said our defense spending needs a haircut. That's besides the point being discussed (which is "NATO funding")
We spend about 3.5% of GDP on military. What % of that 3.5% goes towards the NATO sphere abroad? Half? That would mean 1.75% of GDP spending on NATO, putting us around NED, Denmark,, etc. in terms of "NATO spending". Right around the median.
At 2/3, it puts us around Latvia, Hungary, and Romania (in the top 1/3)
Posted on 3/4/25 at 8:59 am to Flats
quote:
That's bullshite, because all of those assets that we have outside of Europe are still part of the insurance policy.
This is reaching. Bigly.
quote:
We don't firewall our military power like that.
WE don't. But we're not spending our military budget on only NATO-centric operations. That's the whole point of breaking it down.
Posted on 3/4/25 at 9:00 am to stout
Leaving NATO is not gonna happen.
Posted on 3/4/25 at 9:00 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
Why not?
Logic, reality, etc.
quote:
Just who do you think we would be defending NATO from?
That's more of an existential question than a direct question about operations.
quote:
The main threats come from the Middle East, Russia and China.
It's a stretch to even include Russia, outside of the periphery. China and the ME are not invading Europe, nor would they ever try to.
Posted on 3/4/25 at 9:02 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
We are not pulling out of NATO and we shouldn't.
There is no purpose for NATO. The USSR is gone. It's entire reason for existence is gone.
Posted on 3/4/25 at 9:02 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This is reaching. Bigly.
How? You think if Russia is doing a threat assessment they ignore our military assets that are on the other side of the world from their target? We can bring it all on a pressure point in a horrifyingly rapid way with the right leadership. NATO benefits from every penny we spend, not just our bases in the region.
Posted on 3/4/25 at 9:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
In these 2 sentences you shifted "NATO spending" to "worldwide spending", just FWIW.
Because you cannot separate the two. The idea that defense spending in Asia is not related to NATO is moronic.
quote:
What % of that 3.5% goes towards the NATO sphere abroad? Half? That would mean 1.75% of GDP spending on NATO, putting us around NED, Denmark,, etc. in terms of "NATO spending". Right around the median.
That is not how the NATO spending is calculated. There is no differentiating between "NATO" spending and "defense" spending.
NATO members are required to spend a minimum of 2 percent GDP on defense spending. There is no such thing as "NATO spending"
Posted on 3/4/25 at 9:06 am to Flats
quote:
You think if Russia is doing a threat assessment they ignore our military assets that are on the other side of the world from their target?
Russia is only an apt example due to its size.
Is NK a threat to Europe? China? No. Why would our spending in that region to ensure NK stays in line apply to NATO? Can apply to the ME, Africa, South America, Oceania, as well. None are threats to Europe, either. Why should our spending in those areas apply to anything related to NATO when nothing located in those regions is a threat to Europe?
Posted on 3/4/25 at 9:07 am to Flats
quote:
How?
Yea, it's a completely absurd assertion.
Posted on 3/4/25 at 9:09 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We're not "funding" NATO...well in any meaningful way. NATO operations are miniscule. We're funding our actual military
This is your fricking argument? Holy crap. Stop being a contrarian.
Posted on 3/4/25 at 9:09 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
The idea that defense spending in Asia is not related to NATO is moronic.
Why?
Nobody in Asia can project to the European theater.
quote:
That is not how the NATO spending is calculated
"NATO spending" is a made up term.
I'm explaining how it should be defined.
quote:
There is no differentiating between "NATO" spending and "defense" spending.
Sure there is.
quote:
There is no such thing as "NATO spending"
I didn't start using the term to project dishonesty. Again, I'm just trying to create what should be the definition based on rationality and reality.
Europe doesn't really project outside of Europe. All (or at least an incredible amount) of their spending is related to NATO, for this reason.
The United States is in a different position, as the world's lone hegemon. We project literally everywhere, and the region of NATO is only a portion of that projection.
Posted on 3/4/25 at 9:12 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I didn't start using the term to project dishonesty.
You are literally making up statistics that no one uses.
Posted on 3/4/25 at 9:14 am to CU_Tigers4life
Trump announces no aid to Ukraine until they agree to cease fire….
Announces support to NATO cut to 100 million { reduction of 500 million ) reduction. {still levels us as biggest contributor
Announces focus on western hemisphere {NA and SA}, some announcement on Panama Canal and Greenland….
Some huge announcement on Dodge findings and NGO fraud…..
Recounts success on border and criminal exportation…..
Announces support to NATO cut to 100 million { reduction of 500 million ) reduction. {still levels us as biggest contributor
Announces focus on western hemisphere {NA and SA}, some announcement on Panama Canal and Greenland….
Some huge announcement on Dodge findings and NGO fraud…..
Recounts success on border and criminal exportation…..
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News