EU buys $60 bn of American weapons each year! America gets 105 TIMES more out of NATO than it costs!

[ozso]

So do we have an extortion situation going on? "Stay in NATO or it will cost you"?

 

[Laodicean60]

Peace is bad business for weapon sales, I choose peace.

 

[RDKirk]

You are correct. This New York article contains hyperbole and criticism of President Trump.

Here are the facts:

• NATO members buy $120-$125 billion worth of US-made weapons annually.
• The US spends less than $1 billion to maintain its troops and bases in Europe.

So, currently the US profits $124 billion in the current military industrial complex (MIC) structure.

• Europe and Canada lack a defense industry as large as the United States, so NATO will continue buying US-made weapons for the next 4-5 years.

Unless they don't. The MIC is not without its lobbyists in Washington.

• However, Europe, Canada, and other NATO members are now considering developing their own defense industries. They have advanced defense capabilities, but not as big as US defense industry. It will take the European defense industry 4-5 years to meet the demand of NATO members.

If you're proposing this as an argument that NATO won't go this route because it will cause too much pain in the interim, remember this is the same logic Trump is using about tariffs bring back manufacturing to the US. The difference is that those 4-5 years building that capacity won't cause the pain to Europeans that it's going to cause Americans.

• The top 10 US defense companies employ over 1 million Americans. Losing 25% of revenue from NATO could lead to a reduction of 250,000 employees.

You absolutely do not know how the MIC works. There are hundreds of industries intertwined in the MIC with those "top 10." That "25%" is not a simple proportional scaling. Losing 25% in the top 10% means entire contracts would be cancelled and entire companies would be dumped. Many of those top 10 are the major or even the sole industries in their cities. Cutting back a shift doesn't just mean they lose employees, but those communities lose that financial input as well. Restaurants close, dry cleaners close, grocery stores close.

 

[Richard T]

Um - I don't get how you calculate that when the annual NATO bill is less than half a percentage of what you get back from this deal? But I agree with you that splitting NATO makes us all weaker. It's why Trump will go down in history as a traitor to the western world - and sociologists and mass psychologists will be called on to explain how on earth people fell for it and elected this nightmare?

The source for that is Newsweek. I'll assume it is in inflation adjusted dollars. The article did not say how they arrived at that figure. If you figure the US contributed 2% of its GDP for 72 years toward NATO it would come out to 144% of GDP. Current GDP is 29 trillion. So the figure of 21.9 trillion as the article claims seems plausible. How much has NATO cost the US over the past 75 years?

 

[Richard T]

Peace is bad business for weapon sales, I choose peace.

Sadly there is no peace in the bible between nations. Praise God we are not at war with God anymore though. That peace we can have now.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

So, currently the US profits $124 billion in the current military industrial complex (MIC) structure.

Unless they don't. The MIC is not without its lobbyists in Washington.

If you're proposing this as an argument that NATO won't go this route because it will cause too much pain in the interim, remember this is the same logic Trump is using about tariffs bring back manufacturing to the US. The difference is that those 4-5 years building that capacity won't cause the pain to Europeans that it's going to cause Americans.

You absolutely do not know how the MIC works. There are hundreds of industries intertwined in the MIC with those "top 10." That "25%" is not a simple proportional scaling. Losing 25% in the top 10% means entire contracts would be cancelled and entire companies would be dumped. Many of those top 10 are the major or even the sole industries in their cities. Cutting back a shift doesn't just mean they lose employees, but those communities lose that financial input as well. Restaurants close, dry cleaners close, grocery stores close.

You and I share the same perspective. I believe it is absolutely essential for the United States to remain within NATO, as it is the most successful alliance in world history. Additionally, it is crucial for the US to maintain close relations with Europe. No amount of money spent by the US to defend Europe is excessive, as the benefits of being part of NATO and the EU far outweigh any financial expenditure.

If the US keeps antagonizing Europe and undermining NATO, Europe might seek independence or develop its own military industry, which could have negative consequences for America.

I agree with the points you made. I expressed my viewpoint using simpler bullet points, while you provided a more detailed explanation. We both agree on the principles but from different perspectives.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Peace is bad business for weapon sales, I choose peace.

This is a cliché that has no place in international diplomacy.

Antagonizing European nations to develop their own defense industry in pursuit of independence will not lead to peace. Instead, it will result in Europe becoming an adversarial power to the United States, equipped with multiple nuclear capabilities and being the second wealthiest region globally.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

The source for that is Newsweek. I'll assume it is in inflation adjusted dollars. The article did not say how they arrived at that figure. If you figure the US contributed 2% of its GDP for 72 years toward NATO it would come out to 144% of GDP. Current GDP is 29 trillion. So the figure of 21.9 trillion as the article claims seems plausible. How much has NATO cost the US over the past 75 years?

The article and the number are fine, but I must admit the word manipulation is astonishing.

The United States contributed $21 trillion to its own defense, not NATO. Without NATO, the US might have spent three times more on its defense budget over the past 80 years.

 

[RDKirk]

The article and the number are fine, but I must admit the word manipulation is astonishing.

The United States contributed $21 trillion to its own defense, not NATO. Without NATO, the US might have spent three times more on its defense budget over the past 80 years.

The money the US spent on NATO is like the "money" spent on pawns by a chess player. Or, to put it a different way, would a chess player want to start the game without pawns while the opponent has all his pawns?

The "money spent on NATO" was money that actually went from US taxpayers back to US taxpayers. It wasn't as though the money was just deposited in a Swiss bank. We can certainly debate whether the money that went into the Military Industrial Complex might have been better spent to maintain the national infrastructure, but to claim it wasn't taxpayer money that was plowed back into the US economy is disingenuous.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The United States contributed $21 trillion to its own defense, not NATO. Without NATO, the US might have spent three times more on its defense budget over the past 80 years.

Link requested -

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Link requested -

Link for what ?

 

[Always in His Presence]

Link for what ?

uh.... ummmm - the quote I put in the request. Prove the numbers -

 

[John G.]

NATO should be disolved.
It was set up as a defensive alliance and, since 1991, it has been anything but defensive.
It has become, by far and away, the biggest threat to world peace and I, for one, would be happy to see its complete disolution.

 

[RDKirk]

NATO should be disolved.
It was set up as a defensive alliance and, since 1991, it has been anything but defensive.
It has become, by far and away, the biggest threat to world peace and I, for one, would be happy to see its complete disolution.

The only way it's been "the biggest threat to world peace" is that it has backed up the US as "the biggest threat to world peace."

It's not as though NATO has ever done anything without the lead of the US.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

So do we have an extortion situation going on? "Stay in NATO or it will cost you"?

No more than what already existed from Trump's end ("Give in to my demands or we're leaving"). What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

uh.... ummmm - the quote I put in the request. Prove the numbers -

I don't need to prove anything. You often request links or to provide facts frequently, and seem too obsessed on proving others wrong. Unlike many individuals, I do not go online to demonstrate my knowledge or showcase how correct I am and prove others wrong.

If you are uncertain about the accuracy of my number, you may verify it through a Google search or hire a secretary to conduct the research for you. I am neither your research assistant nor a search engine.

By the way, the figure of 21 trillion dollars was referenced from the article posted in post #15 by another member. I was merely citing this number from that article. Had you reviewed the entire thread instead of asking me to provide links, you would have been aware of this information. However, it appears you are more interested in proving me wrong rather than reading the thread to which you are replying.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I don't need to prove anything. You often request links or to provide facts frequently, and seem too obsessed on proving others wrong. Unlike many individuals, I do not go online to demonstrate my knowledge or showcase how correct I am and prove others wrong.

Got it.

You do not have proof and have no interest in providing it. Thanks...

 

[chevyontheriver]

Peace is bad business for weapon sales, I choose peace.

If we want a ‘healthy’ economy we have to have wars. This thread illustrates that truth. Forge plowshares into guns.

 

[Fantine]

I would believe such platitudes after one term of Trump. But no, this is who you are right now. If you change sometime in the future, then we can talk. But be aware that we also know that you might change back at any time.

I have known who Trump is since 2015, and have not and will never waver. This is because he has not changed and is highly likely to never change.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

If we want a ‘healthy’ economy we have to have wars. This thread illustrates that truth. Forge plowshares into guns.

It is not that war is necessary for a healthy economy; rather, peace is essential for economic prosperity. Sometimes, peace can only be achieved by demonstrating strength through military action.