Hacker News Reader

Comment by delib | Hacker News Reader

This is not the only reason, though. The U.S. spends a higher percentage of its GDP on defense than other countries.

It can be argued this is necessary because some NATO members spend lower than they're supposed to. We basically foot their defense bill.

EDIT: Here's a chart https://www.defenseone.com/politics/2015/06/nato-members-def...

why is it necessary, exactly? and who isn't putting in their fair share, in your estimation? and what threats might be so great as to justify high expenditure anyway?

I wasn't sure exactly but I know VDH is into this sort of thing so I searched "Victor Davis Hanson Nato Contribution" and snagged this result

"And when Berlin decides it will not pony up the promised 2 percent of GDP for its NATO contribution, other laggard countries follow its example. Only six of the 29 NATO members (other than the U.S.) so far have met their promised assessments." https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/nato-biggest-challeng...

Makes you wonder though how despite all these collective spending, Russia with less than 10% of this budget remains a huge threat and NATO should further increase its budget to account for this. Seems more like we waste our money instead of spending wisely, doesn't it? Maybe someone should disrupt the war industry.

I'm not advocating a wholesale increase in defense budget. There definitely is corruption and waste in there.

The point is that NATO members agreed in 2006 to spending 2% of their GDP equally and then didn't meet it. They agreed again in 2014 and the ball still hasn't budged.

Pledges are pledges. Whether it's a pledge to cut carbon and stop global warming or a pledge to chip in for the collective defense of everyone. Imagine if everyone decided to cut carbon and then it turned out to be all just hot air. If you don't honor your pledges it will hurt the any sort of future international effort.

I think the two main considerations are the large number of countries that make up NATO allow it to seem very effective on paper, but in reality it'd be very difficult to coordinate the contributions of every country, especially considering the language and cultural barriers among members. It'd probably be incredibly inneffecient to try and lead the NATO members as a unified force. Another consideration is that even though NATO could easily win a war with Russia, member states probably want to present such an overwhelming military force that a war with Russia never breaks out in the first place.

It's cheaper to cause mischief than to maintain dominance. If we wanted to destabilize Chechnya, for example, we could do so for an infinitesimal fraction of the current US military budget.

> Maybe someone should disrupt the war industry

Boston Dynamics is trying to.

it's a bit complicated, because the US is also increasing the threat that those countries are under. With a military presence in 100 around the globe, the biggest stockpile of nuclear weapons, the diplomacy of a punk band, and operations to de-stabilize multiple countries, there is a lot that get reflected on the allies.

3.5% versus 2.2-2.4% for UK and France. Somewhat more but not inconsistent with US commitments to NATO, Japan, and SK.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com