US may tie NATO contributions to tariff exemptions (1 Viewer)

[Yes_Minister]

Canada is protected by the fact that the US is right next door and would take a dim view of anyone invading them in the first place.

All that would mean is that the Russians would be in Riga, Kaunas and Tallinn about a week after such a decision was made.

The US has commitments to our friends; not meeting those commitments, no matter how much money it would save, is a nonstarter.

Sure Canada is defended by geography, the only land border Canada shares is with the US and the US and Canada have been at peace for 200 years. Canada is not going to make trade concessions solely to prop up NATO. NATO is not important enough to Canadians to do that deal.

You always have a transition peroid, slowly phase out NATO and replace it with an EU defense force. The US would spend less on the military and EU can stand on its own two feet military wise. Keeping NATO the way its always been does not make sense any more. Really Europe should handle its own affairs and the US could better spend that money else where.

 

[Tigerace117]

Sure Canada is defended by geography, the only land border Canada shares is with the US and the US and Canada have been at peace for 200 years. Canada is not going to make trade concessions solely to prop up NATO. NATO is not important enough to Canadians to do that deal.

You always have a transition peroid, slowly phase out NATO and replace it with an EU defense force. The US would spend less on the military and EU can stand on its own two feet military wise. Keeping NATO the way its always been does not make sense any more. Really Europe should handle its own affairs and the US could better spend that money else where.

Sitting right next door to a hyperpower has a lot more to do with it; the US' umbrella easily encompasses Canada.

The EU, again, is only weakening as time goes on and populists gain power. NATO has the advantage of decades of existing and a secure, already existing framework. The EU would have to start from scratch in a system more and more people are questioning seriously.

Except that it really doesn't seem like the EU can stand on its own two feet, and might not be able to for quite a long time.

 

[Yes_Minister]

Sitting right next door to a hyperpower has a lot more to do with it; the US' umbrella easily encompasses Canada.

That's beneficially to both parties though, the US does not really have to spend a ton of money defending Canada and Canada does not have to spend a ton of money on defense and the US gets a friendly nation on its borders that handles its own affairs, having a hostile power on your borders would be contrary to your interests. If Canada was actively hostile to the US, though the US is far more powerful, having to deal with a troublesome neighbor all the time would be a right pain in the butt, I think of a certain country in the Middle East who have that problem, of being more powerful then their neighbors, but having to spend a lot of time and money dealing with hostile neighbors.

That being said, Canada is not going to accept a bad trade deal, solely to defend NATO.

The EU, again, is only weakening as time goes on and populists gain power. NATO has the advantage of decades of existing and a secure, already existing framework. The EU would have to start from scratch in a system more and more people are questioning seriously.

Except that it really doesn't seem like the EU can stand on its own two feet, and might not be able to for quite a long time.

Trump is putting them in a sink or swim situation, if Trump is going to use military protection as the sole carrot in trade talks, I think a lot of countries would put more effort into defense, in order to get more sovereignty from an increasing mercantilist US government. If Trump starts putting so many strings on NATO membership, it becomes far less attractive.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Sitting right next door to a hyperpower has a lot more to do with it; the US' umbrella easily encompasses Canada.

The EU, again, is only weakening as time goes on and populists gain power. NATO has the advantage of decades of existing and a secure, already existing framework. The EU would have to start from scratch in a system more and more people are questioning seriously.

Except that it really doesn't seem like the EU can stand on its own two feet, and might not be able to for quite a long time.

The US is as defended by geography as Canada. What is it that makes it necessary to spend more than the next ten countries on defence?

 

[Tigerace117]

That's beneficially to both parties though, the US does not really have to spend a ton of money defending Canada and Canada does not have to spend a ton of money on defense and the US gets a friendly nation on its borders that handles its own affairs, having a hostile power on your borders would be contrary to your interests. If Canada was actively hostile to the US, though the US is far more powerful, having to deal with a troublesome neighbor all the time would be a right pain in the butt, I think of a certain country in the Middle East who have that problem, of being more powerful then their neighbors, but having to spend a lot of time and money dealing with hostile neighbors.

That being said, Canada is not going to accept a bad trade deal, solely to defend NATO.



Trump is putting them in a sink or swim situation, if Trump is going to use military protection as the sole carrot in trade talks, I think a lot of countries would put more effort into defense, in order to get more sovereignty from an increasing mercantilist US government. If Trump starts putting so many strings on NATO membership, it becomes far less attractive.

If Canada was actively hostile the US would have probably dismembered or annexed it years ago. Israel isn't a real good analogy, given that the US is far more powerful than Israel.

European countries have put themselves in a situation where their social programs prohibit any real increase in military/defense spending; the populace won't be too happy to see that being reduced, but any sort of increase in defense would require it.

 

[Tigerace117]

The US is as defended by geography as Canada. What is it that makes it necessary to spend more than the next ten countries on defence?

Should we cut the military down enough that the next war is a bloody stalemate? Why should anything about war be "fair"? Why should we weaken ourselves just so it doesn't look like we aren't stronger than our enemies?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Should we cut the military down enough that the next war is a bloody stalemate? Why should anything about war be "fair"? Why should we weaken ourselves just so it doesn't look like we aren't stronger than our enemies?

Yep, one need only look at our quick and decisive victories in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[Tigerace117]

Yep, one need only look at our quick and decisive victories in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Taliban and Saddam were kicked out of power in a very short amount of time. Forces filled with veterans who'd been fighting their entire lives were decimated by the US. It's been seventeen years since the Taliban was last in control of Afghanistan.

 

[dcsports]

1. Canada spends around 1% of its annual GDP on its military and around 90% of that goes toward NATO commitments. That means that Canada "contributes" around 0.9% of its annual GDP to NATO.
2. Germany spends around 1.2% of its annual GDP on its military and around 90% of that goes toward NATO commitments. That means that Germany "contributes" around 1.08% of its annual GDP to NATO.
3. France spends around 2.2% of its annual GDP on its military and around 90% of that goes toward NATO commitments. That means that France "contributes" around 1.98% of its annual GDP to NATO.
4. The UK spends around 1% of its annual GDP on its military and around 90% of that goes toward NATO commitments. That means that the UK "contributes" around 1.98% of its annual GDP to NATO.
5. The US spends around 3.5% of its annual GDP on its military and around 20% of that goes toward NATO commitments. That means that the US "contributes" around 0.7% of its annual GDP to NATO.

That raises the interesting question of "Which country is NOT 'pulling its weight' in supporting NATO?", doesn't it?

Is it ingenious to take a position based on 0.7% is more than 1.98% (or even 0.9%), or is it simply uninformed?

Where did you get this from? It's not in the article you cited. Googling around, I didn't see any references to 'amount spent on nato commitments'. Only the 2% of GDP defense spending, which the US far exceeds. Giving the percentages there, it looks made up.

 

[Grand Mal]

How much of the US military budget goes towards defending Canada for example? Really I do not think Canada even needs NATO, Canada is protected more by geography then anything else. Maybe NATO should be disbanded and every country should just handle its own defense, I think it would be better for the US to scale back its military involvement with the rest of the world.

I am not sure how relevant NATO is after 1991.

I think NATO is relevant in, for example, the Baltic countries. Eastern European countries. Russia has always loved to have under it's thumb a cushion of buffer states between them and western Europe. Disbanding NATO, I think, would be a mistake.
And I think Canada should keep it's participation in NATO, even if just because of historical ties to Britain and France.
As for the US, so what. They're only in NATO because they love to have a loud voice in these kinds of things. If they leave at least we won't have to hear about how they're carrying the load anymore.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

The Taliban and Saddam were kicked out of power in a very short amount of time. Forces filled with veterans who'd been fighting their entire lives were decimated by the US. It's been seventeen years since the Taliban was last in control of Afghanistan.

Yet how many iraqi’s and Afghani’s are still willing to offer aid to the Taliban and insurgency forces in their home countries?

 

[Tigerace117]

Yet how many iraqi’s and Afghani’s are still willing to offer aid to the Taliban and insurgency forces in their home countries?

Far fewer than once could be forced to.

Slow but steady progress as a whole.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Far fewer than once could be forced to.

Slow but steady progress as a whole.

I did not say anything about the Iraqi’s and Afghan people being forced to aid the Taliban and the insurgency.

I am talking about the people who willingly choose to support the Taliban and insurgency: providing the supplies, shelter, informants, and potential recruits for the Taliban and insurgents

 

[Yes_Minister]

If Canada was actively hostile the US would have probably dismembered or annexed it years ago. Israel isn't a real good analogy, given that the US is far more powerful than Israel.

European countries have put themselves in a situation where their social programs prohibit any real increase in military/defense spending; the populace won't be too happy to see that being reduced, but any sort of increase in defense would require it.

Sure the US could annex Canada, but then you would have a hostile population in your midst, most of whom look, sound and act like Americans, that would be a nightmare that would make Vietnam and Iraq look like a tea party. If you think Canadians would accept a Puerto Rico like status , you are dreaming and the GOP would never let the provinces become states. The defense status quo for the US and Canada works well for both countries, but Canada will not accept a bad trade deal just to maintain that status quo. A big reason the US is able to project its power is because it has not had to deal with any real threats on its borders for a long time. I do not think Canada owes the US, because the US is getting a fair deal with the status quo, Canada does not think it has to hurt its own interests just to maintain this status quo.

And if Trump is charging European countries for US defense, how is that good for them? They still have to pay money and Trump undermines their sovereignty, it might cost more to pay for their own defense, but real sovereignty is a good prize to motivate nations and the US does not need its current military budget to defend Europe. Frankly I think changing the defense status quo would be great for the US and Europe.

 

[Yes_Minister]

I think NATO is relevant in, for example, the Baltic countries. Eastern European countries. Russia has always loved to have under it's thumb a cushion of buffer states between them and western Europe. Disbanding NATO, I think, would be a mistake.
And I think Canada should keep it's participation in NATO, even if just because of historical ties to Britain and France.
As for the US, so what. They're only in NATO because they love to have a loud voice in these kinds of things. If they leave at least we won't have to hear about how they're carrying the load anymore.

Fair enough, but I do not think Canada should take some one sided trade deal with Trump just to preserve NATO. Frankly I think rebalancing the defense scales would be good for the US and Europe.

 

[Grand Mal]

Fair enough, but I do not think Canada should take some one sided trade deal with Trump just to preserve NATO. Frankly I think rebalancing the defense scales would be good for the US and Europe.

Oh, I'm absolutely with you there. NATO, NAFTA, steel tariffs, three distinctly different issues that shouldn't be allowed in the same room together.
I kind of wish the US would walk out of NATO. I'm tired of the complaining, and it'd be Trump closing another door.
I just think that NATO could become useful. Just a suspicion.

 

[iguanaman]

How much of the US military budget goes towards defending Canada for example? Really I do not think Canada even needs NATO, Canada is protected more by geography then anything else. Maybe NATO should be disbanded and every country should just handle its own defense, I think it would be better for the US to scale back its military involvement with the rest of the world.

I am not sure how relevant NATO is after 1991.

Because Putin is such a sweetheart? Given his dream to rebuild the USSR and take back the countries it lost, NATO is far more important now that ever.

 

[Yes_Minister]

Because Putin is such a sweetheart? Given his dream to rebuild the USSR and take back the countries it lost, NATO is far more important now that ever.

No offense, but if I were in Europe, I am not sure how much I would trust the current US administration to be helpful in this area, there seems to be a lot of clouds over the current US government regarding being compromised by the Russians.

If Trump wants to use NATO as a bargaining chip in trade talks, then he is the one endangering the alliance. Frankly I do not think NATO is so important to Canada, that we should accept it as a bargaining chip in trade talks, if Trump wants to conflate defense and trade, he may find other countries are not so willing to bend to him on that.

If people in the US are unhappy and think they have to pay for other countries defense, maybe other countries should spend more and the US should spend less on defense, but really I do not think Canada needs a massive amount of military spending, given our geography and rather modest policy objectives on the international stage.

Also I do not think the US needs its current military budget to take on the Russians, the US vastly outs spends the Russians in defense spending. The US spends more on defense then the next 8 countries combined, that is excessive.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yet, they have historically not paid it.

They have historically paid what they considered appropriate for the defence against the risk that they determined for themselves.

You are wrong here. All American grade school texts start World War I at 1914.

Which surprised me considering the number of Americans who think that WWI started in 1917 when the United States of America "joined in".

Oops, gotta go - supper is ready.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

How much of the US military budget goes towards defending Canada for example?

To defend against "a real threat" - 0.00%

To defend against "an American defined threat" - 100.00%.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Canada is protected by the fact that the US is right next door and would take a dim view of anyone invading them in the first place.

Unless, of course, the country that was invading was attacking north across the 49th Parallel.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Trump is putting them in a sink or swim situation, if Trump is going to use military protection as the sole carrot in trade talks, ...

If that is the case, then I rather suspect that Mr. Trump is going to be surprised at the response (which is likely to boil down to "So what if you threaten to take your bat and ball and go home, we'd rather play soccer anyhow.")

I think a lot of countries would put more effort into defense, in order to get more sovereignty from an increasing mercantilist US government.

The only way to "defeat a bully" is to stand up to them.

If Trump starts putting so many strings on NATO membership, it becomes far less attractive.

More correctly "If Trump starts putting so many strings on NATO membership, it becomes far less attractive to have the United States of America as a member of NATO.".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Where did you get this from? It's not in the article you cited. Googling around, I didn't see any references to 'amount spent on nato commitments'. Only the 2% of GDP defense spending, which the US far exceeds. Giving the percentages there, it looks made up.

You might not have noticed it, but I used the term "around" in every instance.

You can find the GDP figures easily.

As far as the percentage of military spending that "goes towards NATO commitments, that is an EWAG (which is different than "made up"). Please feel free to provide actual data what disproves my analysis.

For starters you might want to consider what percentage of each country's military could be committed to a NATO mission without abandoning that country's other military commitments.

Please don't attempt to convince me that the US military forces in Afghanistan, Asia, the Middle East, the Pacific, South America, Central America, or Cuba are "committed to NATO" because you will be wasting your time.

 

[Tigerace117]

Unless, of course, the country that was invading was attacking north across the 49th Parallel.

In which case they'd be screwed regardless.

 

[MSgt]

They have historically paid what they considered appropriate for the defence against the risk that they determined for themselves.

?! Is that how it works with your bills? You simply pay what you think you should pay according what you determine the electric company can have? Of course not. The NATO deal was made. European countries have historically not paid what they declared they would; and in response to that the U.S. has carried more than its weight for Europe.

This history actually began with France not puling its weight because it was too busy trying to recapture their Southeast Asian colonial jewel. In 1949 and 1950, Paris leaders worked to secure American backing in Vietnam by leveraging France's compliance in Europe against German rearmament and other defense issues against the Soviet Union. The French used the U.S.' irrational fear of communism by arguing about rising communism in Southeast Asia, declaring that they could not do Indochina and continental European defense, and later threatened to abandon Indochina to communism unless we began economically funding their efforts to gain back their colony against Ho Chi Minh. On May 1, 1949, Truman approved an aid program of $23.3 million for Indochina. And so it began. France continued to leverage its (and the rest) own defense in Europe for more and more economic aid in order to "fight communism." American military equipment (40 hellcat fighters) began to appear in 1950. Thus the U.S. carrying far more than its weight for Europe's problems. Despite NATO being created a month prior (April 14, 1949), the U.S. began doing far more than it needed to for Europe's defense. The size of the military/econimc aid package for France's adventure in Indochina was second only to what was happening in Korea. The only defense that mattered during the Cold War, especially to the European continent, was the U.S., not NATO. So, no, European countries have not been paying what is appropriate, especially considering that even today European forces are largely moved by U.S. air (not NATO).

Which surprised me considering the number of Americans who think that WWI started in 1917 when the United States of America "joined in".

Oops, gotta go - supper is ready.

Oh, plenty of Americans are morons. Just walk the streets of Detroit and ask a few how many stars are on the flag. But the individual American is not the history text books.