Should the U.S. defend other NATO countries that maintain low military defense budgets relative to their GDP?
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an intergovernmental military alliance formed by 28 countries in 1949 after the Second World War. To join NATO each member country pledged to spend at least 2% of their GDP on military spending and defense and defend each other against threats from any non-member country. At the NATO Summit of 2014, each member agreed on a goal of spending 2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defense by 2024. Member nations further agreed to devote at least 20% of defense spending on major new equipment and associated Research and Development. As of 2020,…
Read more@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes
@9FMNMPF8mos8MO
I begin by saying something wholly obvious. There is no one in this House who does not wish to see a very wide measure of disarmament.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes, and refusing to defend other NATO countries sets a dangerous precedent for the balance of global power
@9GYWVLR 7mos7MO
NATO stipulations say you must use 2% of your gdp , it should be followed or renegotiated if that is no longer acceptable
@9H4W9GJRepublican7mos7MO
NATO countries should not reap the benefits of the organizations if they cannot or will not agree to the stipulations of the treaty.
@Kaiwantsanap 8mos8MO
We entered the nato agreement for a reason, and withdrawal at this time could cause war with countries that we are currently allied with. With the growing tensions between Russia and China and the United States, it’s a bad idea to leave and potentially start a war with nations that are currently our Allies
@9N8Z82Q1wk1W
Now more than ever, letting NATO countries down could push them to become more friendly towards Russia, which poses a threat both to Europe and to the USA
@9H4CTBZ7mos7MO
The risk to reward sacrificing our benefits as far as money, troops, and safety, knowing that the benefit is at a lack in the big picture due to the financial contributions, disputes among the alliance, and the nontraditional threats like terrorism, cyberattacks and warfare.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
No, and we should withdraw from NATO
@92LT76V 8mos8MO
Anti-NATO rhetoric will empower Russia and China to wage large-scale conventional war on all Western civilization, and may even be more emboldened to use weapons of mass destruction.
@7HJNSX6Republican 8mos8MO
I agree, we should continue to support NATO and look for future expansion into Europe but also in Asia (or the creation of another “NATO” in Asia).
@9FQGQX88mos8MO
I don’t think countries, even powerful ones like the US or Germany, using Anti-NATO rhetoric will really empower Russia or China. Nuclear weapons will never be used by either side; both understand the concept of MAD and will not risk nuclear annihilation just because some countries in NATO are not being supportive. It may embolden them to push their influence on the west and pacific respectively but I don’t see a conventional war nor nukes being used any time soon from a lack of support for NATO. Now, if a country like Poland withdrew from the alliance, then that would be a comple… Read more
@9HLWQ69Libertarian6mos6MO
NATO was established to deter the spread of Soviet influence in Europe. Since the wall fell over 30 years ago, NATO is obsolete.
@9NDJQTX 5 days5D
Vladimir Putin offered to join NATO TWICE, and was rejected both times because the west was never interested in peace with Russia. Russia was 100 percent correct in invading Ukraine, and I am tired of pretending they weren't.
@9FT9HDX8mos8MO
America, a particularist nation, is a free and healthy nation. We are over concerned with foreign affairs, to the detriment of our people - agreements, like paris, are fine, but not alliances.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
No
@9H4CTBZ7mos7MO
Geopolitical dynamics and the evolving geopolitical landscape may impact the relevance and effectiveness of NATO. Strategic Focus adds a debate about whether NATO's strategic focus aligns with U.S. national interests in all cases as well.
@Kaiwantsanap 8mos8MO
We are all human beings. What makes your life more valuable than theirs? What makes their safety and freedom less precious? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
@9N8Z82Q1wk1W
It could push rival countries, like Russia, to take extreme containment measures, which could lead to broader conflicts
@9N78MPQ1wk1W
Why would you not want to be in a defence treaty against the dictatorships constantly undermining our democracy. We need to protect the west It is the greatest place in the world and why would we want to lose it?
@ISIDEWITH7yrs7Y
No, we should not defend any NATO country that spends less than 2% of their GDP on military defense
@9FMNMPF8mos8MO
I think what this argument also ignores, is that the Europeans take a different political perspective on defense spending.
@9L58VGS2mos2MO
At the 2023 Vilnius Summit, NATO Leaders agreed a new Defence Investment Pledge, making an enduring commitment to investing at least 2% of GDP annually on defence.
Yes, but should strongly encourage such nations to increase their support for NATO
@5495QKW4yrs4Y
No, but add a clause that ensures a "tax" or reparation is made to the US from those countries that need defending (and under 2%) should they need the US military for defense or aid.
@8XHGB7HLibertarian3yrs3Y
Yes but demand they pay their fair share
@547W2M24yrs4Y
"Defending" each other is how wars are started. Hell no.
@548HSP84yrs4Y
We should not be expected to fund countries who prosper but do not fund their own defense -- why should we bear the cost when they can afford to do so?
@5485KZ24yrs4Y
Yes, upon the condition that a lien (of sorts...) is placed on that country, resulting in a gained equitable interest to the People of the U.S. Maybe even going to so far as being a fund of mutual benefit, to the US and the country being protected. This could be practical if that country is better off spending their own budget on something which would bring more benefit to that country, thereby increasing a potential return to the US. Especially since the US has so much invested in its military already.
@548YD534yrs4Y
No country deserves a free ride. Each country has a reasonable responsibility to defend and protect its citizens. But failure of a government to reasonably defend and protect its citizens doesn't absolve other countries from a moral responsibility to protect and preserve life to the best of their ability.
@549GJYV4yrs4Y
It is the responsibility of the strong to protect (but not police) the weak, but that goes for all attacked and/or oppressed people--not just for NATO members. NATO, in itself, is an outmoded organisation, which actions since the fall of the Soviet Union arguably has done more to destabilise rather than the opposite.
@54B6PNZ4yrs4Y
We need to worry about our own backyard and stop saving the world.
@549T7R34yrs4Y
Yes, The USA should pull out from NATO but still intervene or assist countries that are unable to defend themselves from hostile enemies or if the stability of the country is required for the benefit of our economy or national security.
@54B5TNP4yrs4Y
GDP? What is our relationship with each country? Are we trying to buy friendship from countries that hate us? We are paying groups so they can afford to kill us in the future. It's nuts.
@5498TF54yrs4Y
We entered Nato with the agreement to defend our Nato partners. We should stick to this promise.
@5496WQD4yrs4Y
we are not the worlds military, we should not have to monitor and defend unless war is declared
@99R93ZZ1yr1Y
Yes, but pressure them to increase their military spending
@85QWNPG4yrs4Y
Yes, but raise the minimum amount and require all member states to meet a defense spending of at least 5% of GDP, or swiftly be dropped from NATO. We are not going to be the sole defender, and allow these countries to build up socialist ‘paradises’ off our protection, we are a large enough country as is, if they want to be state then they know how to apply.
@8HNLZYV4yrs4Y
No, disband NATO as its existence is no longer relevant
@9GZDTYYIndependent7mos7MO
Yes, the U.S. should defend other NATO countries that maintain low military defense budgets relative to their GDP, but we should encourage them to increase their military defense budgets so that they can defend themselves more effectively as well.
@9D3RPBQ10mos10MO
@93NMC5D2yrs2Y
Yes, as long as they have no human rights violations.
@988M428Republican1yr1Y
Yes, but they should be strongly encouraged to contribute more
@94KB4J62yrs2Y
No, this is too expensive
@8Q9PK9M3yrs3Y
Membership in NATO should require a minimum amount of defense spending based on a countrie's GDP.
@ChrisFeder2Constitution4yrs4Y
Yes, but they should pay more relative to their GDP.
@9N5PWJL1wk1W
Instead of reducing our defense, it is smarter to reduce our trade with them. They are locked into the same military defense agreement as we are.
@9N4DF4T1wk1W
To an extent, yes. If a country doesn't have the funds for there military, yes! If a country is refusing to put money to there military because they know the United States will give them equipment, no.
@9N2NDHJ1wk1W
We need more information on the economic status of the countries that are not spending the required amount and what is the accountability? And for how long can they go w/out meeting the minimum. We should defend countries in the face of major threats though.
@9N2GHMY2wks2W
Yes. But seek methods of encouraging those countries to increase their share of the load on their own behalf
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
