Dangerous man

M

Matesrates

Well-known member
The latest missile from Trump. If NATO countries don’t pay their share, 2% of gdp, he would invite Russia to invade them. Shockingly dangerous statement which will no doubt embolden Putin.

He is right though about contributions, only 11 of the 30 members pay 2% and apparently America pays around £750 billion, whereas the combined amount paid by the rest is half that amount.
 
Matesrates said:
The latest missile from Trump. If NATO countries don’t pay their share, 2% of gdp, he would invite Russia to invade them. Shockingly dangerous statement which will no doubt embolden Putin.

He is right though about contributions, only 11 of the 30 members pay 2% and apparently America pays around £750 billion, whereas the combined amount paid by the rest is half that amount.
Click to expand...
The 2 % of GDP is a bit of a red herring.

The US is the world's biggest supplier of arms so Trump is keen on other countries to up their spend on defence as a large proportion of that will go to US companies and boost the US economy. The US spends very little of its defence budget on foreign arms. US also spend a lot bigger % of GDP on defence research (which is included in the 2% NATO target) which is part of their industrial strategy for securing future overseas arms sale whilst also acting as indirect subsidies to US industry (Boeing is arguably propped up by US defence spending).

There is also a debate to be had on effectiveness of defence spend - the bang for your buck by the Scandi/Baltic countries is certainly a lot greater than a lot of other NATO members. Is UK spend on nuclear weapons an efficient use of our defence budget or should we be investing that money in emerging technologies ?
 
bollieboy said:
The 2 % of GDP is a bit of a red herring.

The US is the world's biggest supplier of arms so Trump is keen on other countries to up their spend on defence as a large proportion of that will go to US companies and boost the US economy. The US spends very little of its defence budget on foreign arms. US also spend a lot bigger % of GDP on defence research (which is included in the 2% NATO target) which is part of their industrial strategy for securing future overseas arms sale whilst also acting as indirect subsidies to US industry (Boeing is arguably propped up by US defence spending).

There is also a debate to be had on effectiveness of defence spend - the bang for your buck by the Scandi/Baltic countries is certainly a lot greater than a lot of other NATO members. Is UK spend on nuclear weapons an efficient use of our defence budget or should we be investing that money in emerging technologies ?
Click to expand...
Solar and wind powered missiles are the future
 
NATO works for America. It guarantees the involvement of 29 other countries in support of the USA if any of them are invaded. Also, according to the NATO Secretary General, Jan Stoltenberg, a lot of those countries that were falling behind have now upped their NATO contributions.
 
The big problem is that Trumps followers and supporters think he is 'God's gift' to humanity.
Completely blind followers and, in some States, overwhelming support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top