Hacker News Reader

Comment by cturner | Hacker News Reader

Among reasons for the American spend (1) it helps to support the nuclear non-proliferation cause, and has historically been used to dissuade Australia and Japan and South Korea and West Germany from creating their own nuclear weapons programs; (2) because the US has historically guaranteed northern Europe against a USSR tank invasion, though this may no longer be relevant; (3) the US is security guarantor for much of east Asia, including the Korean Peninsula. Asian nations currently have strong concern about the rise of wolf warrior China.

If Europe is not freeloading, why was there so much negative reaction by European leaders to Trump reducing presence in Europe? Surely this should be celebrated!

If NATO is no longer relevant, then nations should drop out of it. There is a clear path to this. If they want to be members, they should honour their obligations.

View on HN

Europe maybe freeloading, but can you really blame them? Everybody knows they can get away with that and stay in NATO. Heck, look at what Turkey is doing and they are still in NATO. U.S. wants to preserve NATO the most, almost at any cost. Other countries know this and are more lukewarm to NATO and these things are to their advantage when deciding how much they really have to spend.

Also, spending more money on defense for EU means buying military equipment from US, which US would definitely profit from.

Australia doesn't have nukes because they don't want them, not because the US told them not to or promised to use them on it's behalf. it's so historically uninterested that it doesn't even have a nuclear power industry.

    > Australia doesn't have nukes because they don't want them

I don't think you did any investigation before posting that, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_and_weapons_of_mass_...

Australia didn't need a nuclear power industry during this era, it was a major coal producer and nobody cared about emissions.

I don't understand your point? Nuclear testing occurred in Australia but not by Australia.

>>" it helps to support the nuclear non-proliferation cause [..]"

The non-proliferation cause it's another way of saying "we are the only one that should have nuclear capability". It doesn't look like to me that the USA is interested in a world without nuclear weapons (1), only in a world where the others don't have nuclear weapons.

>>"If Europe is not freeloading, why was there so much negative reaction by European leaders to Trump reducing presence in Europe? Surely this should be celebrated!"

If the problem is freeloading and defense, instead of "business", why being against spending the money in European military industry?

I notice that you don't address the question that Europe already spend more than Russia.

I think you forgot your links in your answer.

(1) - https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/02/politics/nuclear-treaty-i...

    > only in a world where the others don't
    > have nuclear weapons

It's a world where only Russia, (mainland) China, the US, France and the UK have nuclear weapons, in pursuit of a strategic balance.

    > If the problem is freeloading and defense, instead
    > of "business", why being against spending the money
    > in European military industry?

Yeah, it doesn't surprise me to hear the pentagon whinge about people spending money with other vendors.

On this theme - there was an interesting Foreign Policy paper arguing that the F35 program serves as a US version of the belt-and-roads initiative. Still, it must be half-decent or countries would not buy it. e.g. Australia is licensing its recent sub design from France. But, it is buying the F-35, despite the lock-in problems. Israel produces an astonishing amount of its own tech but, likewise, is buying the F-35.

    > I notice that you don't address the question
    > that Europe already spend more than Russia.

I thought my comments about the relevance of NATO to be a response to this. It is or it isn't, countries should decide. There are non-NATO European countries that spend less than 2%.

My themes in the original comment was the notion of the European military on two grounds. (1) If military goals were important, nations would/should have been lifting their weight in NATO. (2) There are obstacles to creating a command structure for a European military, which is a very weak federation.

Lots of F35 teething issues affecting procurement decision 10 years ago. People unironically comparing F35 with Gripen. It's a great piece of kit worth locking in now. But last few years of US commitment uncertainty meant countries are now refocusing on indigenous defense industries, military goals are important now. Every previous billion that goes into F35 from foreign purchases improves F35 competitiveness while depriving competitors and foreign indigenous efforts, which was fine if US is dependable, i.e. Japan complained about how little US provided tech transfers and cooperation in the joint F2 program. I imagine it's in US interest to kill these upstart efforts or SAAB and Dessault when it comes to European procurement hence need for espionage. EU market size + existing industrial base could be a viable competitor to US MIC.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com