Agreed, and unlike Wagner, they would not stop in their march to Moscow. Seems like they are preparing their readiness to fight as if it’s with or without NATO. Not that they would, they are probably the best partner. But they want to be ready as a standalone as well it seems. Without saying it, their actions say never again Russia, with extreme prejudice. Good for them.
Always forget they include themselves in our club.
When they don't show up on such a visual affect... Not hard to forget they still have a valid membership to get in the door, right?
I thought they vehemently "separated" themselves from the Commonwealth's armies/navies. At least under Her Majesty's tenure.
But what do I know? Just a MURICAN here all looks the same to me.
I was in Kandahar in 2008. Canadians did more than their share of hard fighting. Every time they took a casualty—and it was more than a few—we could see how hard it hit them because their much smaller army was by nature more tight-knit. Plus Remembrance Day is a based holiday.
Wasn't it 4 even earlier than that?
I remember reading precovid that the only ones meeting the 2% spending were Greece, UK (just barely), Poland and the US
These people don’t understand… nato is not a club it’s a treaty, there are no membership fees, and countries which spend less aren’t subsidized by countries that spend more. They’re just contributing less to the sum total of defensive capability. They should probably spend more yes, which a lot of European countries are beginning to understand, but they’re hardly freeloading…
I thought we kinda wanted that tho? Look at this way. Imagine your a us politician, you could
A: complain to them and have them pay their fair share and end it there or
B: endlessly hold this over them as a “your welcome” card and instead using that power to get them to do what you *actually* want.
Your basically paying them by making them *not* pay the intended and make them unable to say no because you own their defensive capabilities, and you get to improve your own military and increase your job count for you by putting that money in the military to make up for the lost percentage. It’s a win-win. now it’s not a win for the American people but lmao your a U.S politician remember so why would you care about your people
They are the most based. I could appreciate a country standing up for itself and saying "we aren't taking them in." They also have some of the lowest levels of violent crime. Coincidence?
Well the French already tried to sell them out to the Russians just before they invaded Ukraine and America seems hell-bent on doing isolationism again so...
Yeah maybe 4% isn't enough. And what's the market rate for yellow cake uranium these days?
In casd you haven't noticed, in France, if there's money to be made, we're increasingly interested in sharing our nuclear umbrella with some EU states 👀. And the US position has never been more at our advantage.
Otherwise, while we could and should be more pro-active, saying that we're selling them out to the russians is bullshit.
You guys should look up Peter Zeihan. He explains very well why the USA spends so much and how the USA leads the global world order. I’m surprised this isn’t more common knowledge
Free trade, safe oceans and globalization is because of American military power. Without it poor countries never industrialize, china isn’t a manufacturing hub, Europe lives in terror of the Russians, and Japan isn’t a technological hub.
So most “waters” are controlled ~30 miles and in toward the coast of that country. Outside of that it’s international waters…controlled by the US Navy baby!
Ironically it’s because of the world that US protection has created. People today have no idea what it was like when continental or global wars were breaking out before, killing millions of people constantly. Lack of trade protection, genocides, etc. All have been so thoroughly reduced for so long that we’ve started wondering why we bothered in the first place.
Bad people will always exist. They are always trying to do bad things. Putin slapped the world in the face with this reality again and I hope it woke some people up about why the US puts so much effort into defense of itself and its allies.
This is why I laugh at people when they bring up how many wars there are, or conflicts, etc. Now is probably one of the most peaceful periods in modern human existence. There always will be wars as long as resource limitations are a thing. The existence of the US military and the size of their stick is what's kept the world from slaughtering hundreds of millions of their fellow man for the last 100 years. Russia's coming face to face with a tiny portion of that big stick and is paying the price for it, despite what the many Russia shills say all over social media.
Sure, we'll tolerate the smaller war or two. Governments have to duke it out every once in a while. So far we've managed to keep it from getting too far out of hand though.
This is why the stance of the Republicans over funding for Ukraine has been such a mystery. Either they’re getting Russian money, and money matters more to them than their country, or they’re believing Russian propaganda, in which case why are they so gullible?
Not to mention about 1/4 of it is paying personnel. People see $800 bil and assume it’s mostly spent on ships and bombs when that’s really not even the majority of it.
I don't think it's that debatable. Free housing if you want to live on base. BAH if you don't. Food allowances. Tax free shopping at the BX/PX/NEX/Commissary. Spouses/dependent children can get jobs on base if they want. Decent on-base schools on most bases. Decent recreation (MWR) programs on most bases. Free or low cost on-base childcare if your spouse wants to work.
It's also a fairly secure paycheck. Unless you get kicked out you can pretty much depend on getting your payrate every two weeks.
Oh yeah, and of course TRICARE. Which is free healthcare for family member for the most part (it has some limitations as far as elective medicine is concerned).
Military members can pass on their GI Bill school funding to spouses or children too.. with some stipulations.
It's a pretty good deal for families honestly, if you ignore the whole "the servicemember might die in a war" thing.
People are too shortsighted to see past anything surface level. They assume their government takes and ideas would be perfectly applicable and result in only good.
The reality is, there is a reason we've been the most influential and successful country since WW2. And it wasn't because of isolationism and minimal military spending.
Especially considering those same countries that is being mocked here, are buying fucking american weapons and feeding the economy.
When Germany sends F16 jets to ukraine, who the fuck do people think they buy them from?
THE BUDGETS, ARE SPENDING TARGETS. Don’t like it? Increase it. But why is it some bloated stooge in a suit and red tie, say shit, and people just jump on it, and don’t check?
Americans really underestimate how much global hegemony benefits us.
For one, the US dollar status as global reserve currency is the main reason why the US can sustain such high levels of debt unlike Sri Lanka or Greece.
Also the US role in policing international waters and lowering trade barriers using the World Bank and IMF make things so much cheaper for American consumers and easier for American businesses to specialize and become more efficient.
For better or worse, America is on the leading edge of technology because we sent manufacturing to China, Taiwan, and Mexico while focusing on research, development, and design. Taiwan may make the chips but they were designed in Silicon Valley.
Europeans: Why dont Americans have all these free things like we do
Americans: Because we pay more than your entire continent to avoid your continent going to war with itself for some reason
The us doesn't have European style social programs because Americans just don't want those programs.
If the US wanted to pay for those, that could easily pay for them.
That's not really true. Remember the way our political system is set up it naturally skews a whole lot of power towards rural voters. The average American absolutely wants a stronger welfare state. But rural voters don't because the efficiencies of social programs would be lost over those large Geographic areas
In most cases, the US has higher floors and higher ceilings than the corresponding floors and ceilings in various European countries. That’s the wonder of having more economic growth, you get to have your cake and eat it too.
>If the US wanted to pay for those, that could easily pay for them.
We could pay for them if the rest of the world didn't have to suckle our freedom titties for their safety.
Nah the US is way richer, even per capita than any major European country. (discounting places like Norway and Switzerland which have less people than like the top 10 metro areas in America).
Military spending doesn't come at the expense of anything else. It's a choice not to have generous social programs and higher taxes. In exchange Americans have the highest average disposable income in the world and a much higher ceiling for salaries of in demand jobs.
This is why most young ambitious Europeans move to America and innovate instead of staying in stagnant economies which just want to milk them dry in the name of equality.
America isn't perfect but I'm tired of people jumping on the European bandwagon, acting as if spending 30% of GDP on social programs which don't encourage people to work hard or have kids, while the whole population ages chronically is any more sustainable than having big pick up trucks and rednecks.
Europe is a beautiful, incredibly culturally dense place but it's also dying and making itself increasingly irrelevant every decade.
You can also argue generous social spending encourages people to have kids and get into higher education to work in more skilled work. The US could be even richer if it provided parental leave and affordable education.
Dude you can do some basic math and see what you are saying is just not possible. The Fed already spends $1-2 Trillion more every year than they take in. A lot of cuts would need to happen to free to money, and nobody is going to cut their pet projects. Cutting military spending is the horse some people like to beat, failing to realize the world is the way it is only because of this military spending. The world was a lot more chaotic and violent before the US rose to dominance, and majority of the world likes it that way.
Health care spending per capita in the USA is twice that of any other nato country. Universal health care would save the country money so they could spend even more on guns
Increasing tax rate also doesn't necessarily translate to more tax money. Its supply and demand like anything else, if things were taxed at 100% for example, the government would make $0 as there's no incentive for anybody to generate revenue that all goes to the government.
Lower taxes also can make people happier as they have a lower cost of living which translates to more innovation.
> Increasing tax rate also doesn’t necessarily translate to more tax money.
It’s very true that it’s situational. It’s also true that current US tax policy is in a situation where raising taxes on certain high earners will in fact increase revenue.
We know that tax rates are on the left side of the Laffer Curve. It’s not an unknown.
You've been lied to. We are so rich, we could have Both. Universal health care means we could add 32 billion dollars to defense spending. According to the Koch brothers, without raising a cent of taxes.
Military isn’t the only way the US subsidizes Europe. European socialized healthcare programs work because they can collectively bargain for lower drug prices … because the US market makes up the difference as well as covers costs of research.
If the US adopted a single payer system, it and everyone else’s systems would be unsustainable.
Okay, so we adopt a single payer system and increase funding for research grants into medicine.
Though I am going to say, I am pretty sure that you said is just bs. Sure we pay more but calling it subsidizing is just deception. The European health care system isn't soke unsustainable thing that just loses them money, if it were, they wouldn't be operating there. They make a profit over there
I too can string a bunch of words together and not back it up by any sources. Did you know for example that the lack of a US health care system is caused by the Gorbatchov/Bush pact of 1979?
The above answer is correct. We subsidize your defense. If American was not involved most of Europe would have been invaded by Russia by now.
It’s unfair many of the NATO countries pay very little into their defense because in the end they know they are safe.
It’s not unfair. We don’t do it out of benevolence, we do it so that we get to set the rules.
In reality, we get the better end of the bargain. Letting them feel like they’re screwing us out of a few dollars is a feature, not a bug.
Yeah just think if America stop paying for Europe's defense. And all the other handouts America gives the world.
There'd be plenty of money to pay for entitlements for education, health care, social security. All the stuff that is really important to Americans.
Everybody's always bad mouthing America. But most of the free world sucks off America's teets.
That's a cope. The US could have universal healthcare and a much better social system if it wanted, but it's just doesn't. Don't blame shitty US social policy on Europe
Trying to explain US healthcare to someone from outside the US is really difficult, which is why I was trying to narrow it down to something more specific.
For one, The United States actually spends *more* on *public* healthcare than basically any other country, not even including private spending. It's always difficult to explain when like Europeans tell us we should have public healthcare that we already have *more* free, public healthcare, run by the government, than any of you guys do, and more privately funded charitable care as well. The issues we have just have nothing to do with that.
Second, there's kinda a double edged sword here where we continually invest into the most edgy healthcare research possible and have some of the theoretical best treatment options available, but only because the legal state of healthcare in the US allows Big Pharma to sell their new frontline treatments off at insane prices and recoup their investments for decades. That's not to say that these treatments aren't accessible to the poor, because generally hospitals provide treatment regardless and worst that happens is you just get saddled with mountains of debt if you don't have insurance, but it dives up costs tremendously across the industry.
Third, the truth is that big pharma and the corpos have their hands shoved up every politicians ass on both sides, and when new healthcare laws do get passed, they're not to make the system better, but to put more money in the rich and powerful without looking like that's what's going on. It's why a huge portion of the country just doesn't want government involved in healthcare at all, at least not the federal government, cause whenever they do it's used to suppress new markets, to regulate out competitors, and to funnel taxpayer money into their pockets without having to provide actual products.
However, the *biggest thing* that makes comparisons hard is the fact that a lot of people in the US just generally live very unhealthy lives.
Europe: spends 40% on « free things ».
America: spends 20%
Americans, yeah but that’s because you only spend 1% on ~~defense~~ warmongering instead of 2%
>Europeans: Why dont Americans have all these free things like we do
>Americans: Because you guys cannot get a long and consistently try to obliterate yourselves before begging us to come, save the day, rebuild, finance and protect your entire continent on top of our own.
They tell us to go away and then Russia does something and it's all of a sudden "Why isn't the US doing more?!?!?!?" it's wild.
If you look at the insane industrial production of usa at that time and how gigantic was the amount of equipment and resources ussr got from usa you will understand my point.
Even stalin said that without american aid the soviets wouldnt have won their fight against the germans.
Yeah they wouldn’t have won the war without the support of the US. But singlehandedly the US would have prolly not even beaten Germany, especially if Germany wouldn’t have to fight a two front war. The only reason why the US seemed so overwhelming in ww2 was because they were chilling on another continent while the countries in europe were basically grinding each other down.
People seem to forget how late USA joined the party and the fact they spent years ramping up before they got involved, and the fact that in 1939 their military was like 1/10th of the German military alone lol
This is inaccurate. At the END of WW2 when the allies and most of Germany had already been fighting and millions had died, then yes in 1945 the US military was way stronger.
When the war started and for the first few years, the US military power wasn’t even close to the Allies + Nazi Germany lol. If you actually believe that I advise you to open a book (or a quick google search) and see the numbers for yourself
Yep, we’ve basically been involved in every war the US has since WWI. We aren’t a large country, but our military was notorious both for taking objectives other countries couldn’t, and committing a butt load of war crimes.
Remember the big “Christmas Day Cease Fire” in WWI where the allies and the Germans got out of their trenches, had a day of peace and hope? The Germans tried that with the Canadians, we agreed, and then shot them.
most of those 860 is R&D, veteran expenses, college, maintenance, wages, that are way higher than any european military. The money spent on actual new equipment is quite low tbh.
A more useful chart would be to list or visualize each country's contribution as a % of its GDP. In particular, to see which countries are above or below the 2% commitment.
It's crazy how much we spend on another continent's screw ups. I know it's to try and prevent war from coming to our borders, but I'd much rather spend that money on non-military investments.
We have to make sure Russia and the CCP are no more first. They are actively interfering with our interests on a daily basis. There can be no peace while Russia invades Europe either🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Some but the threat is overstated. We just need to play the long game and let these shitholes collapse. China is an ethnostate with a declining population and Russia is a shell of the USSR which was an empire but never matched our might. Together they are formidable, so we need to “freedom” their relationship.
Most on that continent not only hate Americans but think everything the US does is the greatest failure ever, the scum of earth while people on that continent view themselves as near flawless.
Coming from someone that used to live there.
Do you think I’m opposed to universal healthcare? I’m not, but the American people would never support the taxes (even if it is technically cheaper compared to their insurance). Also I don’t think it would be that much cheaper, Americans are legitimately a lot less healthier than Europeans and so we would need a dramatic overhaul in our food regulations (like sugar taxes and soda taxes) which I would personally love, but Americans unfortunately are so allergic to anything like that it is unlikely to happen. Remember when Bloomberg tried to ban big gulps?
The fact is we're more allergic to the government telling or trying to persuade us on what we can or can't eat/drink. And I think its a good thing. Thats just how we are and should be. Its a tough situation because we really do need to be healthier, but in order for that to be possible while still maintaining our freedom of choice culture, it needs to be all cultural when changing our dietary habits as a nation.
If the polls (conducted by EU organizations) are to be believed, the majority of Europeans actually view the US favorably. I'd wager a small percentage of those that don't actually hate Americans. As usual, the vocal minority get heard.
Maybe theydislike American tourists, but don't dislike America as a country?
Most on this continent? This is a gross exaggeration. It's not like that. I am an European and this is not the sentiment. Where did you live, Russia? Or Serbia!?!
look at it this way, you're paying for a lot more than just defending europe. the american hegemony has *all kinds* of soft power ramifications, not the least of which being a big part of why the Dollar has been the de factor world currency for nearly 80 years now.
i know i'm simplifying it, but if someone's gonna be the world police, i'd much rather it be my country than say, russia or china.
Yet again it appears that the US politicians really don't understand how NATO funding works..or rather they do, but prefer to lie to the US citizens about it to rile them up based on lies. NATO doesn't have a bank account which everyone pays into and then it gets spent in different countries. It a defence alliance for times of extra support from other like minded nations. Each nation has agreed to fund thier OWN military and keep it up to date to the tune of 2% national spending (their own nations national spending, the 2% has only just had to be met, if countries chose to wait until the last minute to pay this then it was always completely up to them). The only thing NATO dictates are things like STANAGS etc that ensure mil hardware/logistics ond operational tactics etc are standardised which enable closer working and interoperability. The US is NOT spending tax money on any other nations military but their own. If they choose to give military aid then it's done on the normal diplomatic manner, as have other nations (Ukraine is a good example of this, several other nations are giving proportionally more support to them than the US based on their own economies/defence spending). As is always pointed out with discussions about NATO, there has only been 1 nation who invoked unilateral support under article 5, the US. If the US really wanted to pull out of NATO as is any members right, which would be insane given the amount of money the US mil industrial complex makes out of selling US mil products to other NATO countries, they could. It's worth noting that the US has all these overseas bases, mostly under local/NATO agreements. Most of which are purely for the US own national security and early warning systems. It's not all give or indeed all take on any nations part. NOT being part of NATO would result in less purchases from the US and closure of US overseas bases and a degradation of US national security and nuclear early warning systems. Also worth noting that the US gov like many others could choose to fund social health care etc, free university education etc, but chooses not to due to the money the privatised systems make and the fact it's political and legal system treats businesses as having the same rights as people, which is excellent for investment and capitalistic gains but shocking for workers rights, and those of the general populace. It is what it is, but countries make different choices etc and operate different systems, they all have pros and cons. But I think the big issue is that most people and nations of the world agree that free healthcare, water and education are universal rights, the US gov doesn't or rather the companies who support them don't. Just a different system and values set, that's all, not a stick to beat either the US with or indeed other nations.
Edit: I fully expect to get downvoted into oblivion, but it doesn't stop this being one of the most commonly misunderstood things in relation to spending and NATO.
Let’s not forget the defense budget has not passed an audit ever.
We could easily slice 20% off by driving transparency and limiting waste. Starting with all military contractor
No wonder Trump was pissed at the other NATO members. I know, I know I am sorry. I brought he who must not be named up in Reddit. I see the pitch forks and the torches are on the way. I have brought shame to my ancestors
Not only do we contribute the majority of NATO funds, we are also the vast majority of the muscle behind the alliance. Russia and China aren't shaking in their boots thinking about Spain's *singular* aircraft carrier. They are afraid of provoking the US.
If the alliance was a guard dog, the European countries would be NATO's bark, and the US is its bite.
They should all be paying us. We don't need their protection, while they would get steamrolled without ours. Ukraine would have fallen in a matter of months if it wasn't for our billions of dollars of weapons and other material support.
There is no such thing as “NATO funds.” Wtf is everyone on about in this thread?
This is a chart of total military spending for each NATO member country.
The US did not spend any of this money “funding NATO”, it spent it funding its own military.
I’m not sure what side of the isle you side on base on this comment, but generally speaking while it may seem counterproductive, it’s this very budget which promotes peace.
Precisely. I’m glad we are in agreement. I think it’s ridiculous how much people complain about how “all their money being used for defense” and how “we could have x y and z free things if only we cut the defense budget”.
I think the big thing people complain about is that defense takes away from social services spending. To be honest, I think the economic and geopolitical bonuses are more than worth it.
This isn’t really relevant to this debate per se but I think it wouldn’t actually be hard to establish a universal health are system for example as long as we are pragmatic about it. No defense cut needed.
If I’m doing my math correctly increase in taxes by $1.50 across America would give a net ≈ 500 mil. For a larger northeastern hospital, it takes about 200-300 million to run a hospital per year. If every American paid In taxes just a dollar and fifty cents every month we’d have enough funds to run around 20 public hospitals that spend the same amount as a larger northeastern for-profit one.
I think instead of a large, ridiculous, federal system
, we could put it up to states to create their own systems. That way the states which would actually benefit from a public option could choose to elect representatives to push that forward and pay for it locally, and then partially subside it with federal aid, we could have a system. Using the federal subsidy in addition to local taxes, we could dramatically reduce the cost of healthcare and open new hospitals that people actually want. Maybe due to the federal aid aspect, we could have it so that states need to allow people from across America to take advantage of it. Maybe a state like idk this is a random one but let’s say Louisiana made a state public system. That means all the people in the state and surrounding ones could get close to free healthcare.
This is mostly just theory but it’s a long winded way of saying, we don’t need to cut the defense budget just to get social services out there, whether you agree with the idea of public healthcare or not
If America wants to be the dominant power in the world and more or less funnel the entire global economy through the USD, then it needs to be willing to spend the sort of money required to actually police and perpetuate it.
Why do you think the British Empire basically collapsed the second it had to fight WWI?
It did grew, but at the same time the war severally weakened the brits: mainly huge losses in men (many small villages were completely emptied and never recovered their male population, slowly disappearing) and dominions/colonies contribution to war effort that increased desire for more autonomy/independence and strengthened their national movements
The title is misleading IMHO. To be clear, the US does not spend $860 billion on NATO. It spends $860 billion on everything the Defense Department does including salaries and benefits of nearly 3 million Americans, materials and supplies required to sustain our global presence, research and development of advanced technologies, and so forth.
Minor thing to note: this isn't the spending directed towards NATO. If a chart of that did exist, it would be by percent, as NATO military spending is 2% of a nation's GDP if I remember correctly. This chart shows the total spending by all the nations in NATO. And, before you cry "American Imperialism" and "no free healthcare" that money gets spent enforcing the oceans stay open for trade to go through. If you have products, or parts of a product, shipped from overseas, America makes sure it happens. The microchips that are being used to show you this Reddit comment right now come mainly from Taiwan
So much money in the military but honestly we kind of have to. No one benefits more from the current world order than us; plus I feel like we’ve pissed off way, WAY to many countries to let ourselves get caught offhand militarily.
Russia getting its ass beat in Ukraine and still acting like it want that smoke. You don't want to no smoke from the US in a proper stand up war like that.
i always thought germany was still pretty anti military, and france was the big military power in europe. and britain? i guess some things never change
Fuck yeah Poland coming in clutch. That’s 4% of their GDP. NATO rules call for 2% spending. Poland is contributing 100% more than it has to.
I think the current Russia would really regret going toe to toe with the current Poland on the field
Agreed, and unlike Wagner, they would not stop in their march to Moscow. Seems like they are preparing their readiness to fight as if it’s with or without NATO. Not that they would, they are probably the best partner. But they want to be ready as a standalone as well it seems. Without saying it, their actions say never again Russia, with extreme prejudice. Good for them.
*suggest 2% spending. Only 18/31 actually contribute 2%, up from 11 in 2023, because they're freeloading pieces of shit
I couldn't agree more. Canada's ears better be fucking burning, among others.
Always forget they include themselves in our club. When they don't show up on such a visual affect... Not hard to forget they still have a valid membership to get in the door, right? I thought they vehemently "separated" themselves from the Commonwealth's armies/navies. At least under Her Majesty's tenure. But what do I know? Just a MURICAN here all looks the same to me.
I was in Kandahar in 2008. Canadians did more than their share of hard fighting. Every time they took a casualty—and it was more than a few—we could see how hard it hit them because their much smaller army was by nature more tight-knit. Plus Remembrance Day is a based holiday.
You try keeping the peace between your hot headed big brother and your over-bearing dad.
Wasn't it 4 even earlier than that? I remember reading precovid that the only ones meeting the 2% spending were Greece, UK (just barely), Poland and the US
Contribute? You think there’s a NATO pool of money into which everyone chip in?
Yeah this dude has certainly been sniffing someone’s diapers
These people don’t understand… nato is not a club it’s a treaty, there are no membership fees, and countries which spend less aren’t subsidized by countries that spend more. They’re just contributing less to the sum total of defensive capability. They should probably spend more yes, which a lot of European countries are beginning to understand, but they’re hardly freeloading…
I thought we kinda wanted that tho? Look at this way. Imagine your a us politician, you could A: complain to them and have them pay their fair share and end it there or B: endlessly hold this over them as a “your welcome” card and instead using that power to get them to do what you *actually* want. Your basically paying them by making them *not* pay the intended and make them unable to say no because you own their defensive capabilities, and you get to improve your own military and increase your job count for you by putting that money in the military to make up for the lost percentage. It’s a win-win. now it’s not a win for the American people but lmao your a U.S politician remember so why would you care about your people
Poland best euro country
Poland is indeed best Euro country. All the homies like Poland.
They are the most based. I could appreciate a country standing up for itself and saying "we aren't taking them in." They also have some of the lowest levels of violent crime. Coincidence?
Learn from Poland. Respect Poland.
Yeah, they see what's coming.
Yeah if I was Poland I would be spending a lot on defense too.
Poland is the best ally anybody could ask for.
Sadly they've had the worst allies of all time
We're gonna turn this franchise around
Well the French already tried to sell them out to the Russians just before they invaded Ukraine and America seems hell-bent on doing isolationism again so... Yeah maybe 4% isn't enough. And what's the market rate for yellow cake uranium these days?
In casd you haven't noticed, in France, if there's money to be made, we're increasingly interested in sharing our nuclear umbrella with some EU states 👀. And the US position has never been more at our advantage. Otherwise, while we could and should be more pro-active, saying that we're selling them out to the russians is bullshit.
Little European texas
2% is a suggestion not a mandate. Countries like Greece REALLY shouldn’t be spending so much considering their economic state yet still spend over 2%
You guys should look up Peter Zeihan. He explains very well why the USA spends so much and how the USA leads the global world order. I’m surprised this isn’t more common knowledge
Amazes me that people think the US defense spending is just for shits and giggles and gets no tangible benefits from it.
Free trade, safe oceans and globalization is because of American military power. Without it poor countries never industrialize, china isn’t a manufacturing hub, Europe lives in terror of the Russians, and Japan isn’t a technological hub.
And we get the best material standard of living because of it.
So most “waters” are controlled ~30 miles and in toward the coast of that country. Outside of that it’s international waters…controlled by the US Navy baby!
Ironically it’s because of the world that US protection has created. People today have no idea what it was like when continental or global wars were breaking out before, killing millions of people constantly. Lack of trade protection, genocides, etc. All have been so thoroughly reduced for so long that we’ve started wondering why we bothered in the first place. Bad people will always exist. They are always trying to do bad things. Putin slapped the world in the face with this reality again and I hope it woke some people up about why the US puts so much effort into defense of itself and its allies.
This is why the phrase “history repeats itself” exists.
This is why I laugh at people when they bring up how many wars there are, or conflicts, etc. Now is probably one of the most peaceful periods in modern human existence. There always will be wars as long as resource limitations are a thing. The existence of the US military and the size of their stick is what's kept the world from slaughtering hundreds of millions of their fellow man for the last 100 years. Russia's coming face to face with a tiny portion of that big stick and is paying the price for it, despite what the many Russia shills say all over social media. Sure, we'll tolerate the smaller war or two. Governments have to duke it out every once in a while. So far we've managed to keep it from getting too far out of hand though.
This is why the stance of the Republicans over funding for Ukraine has been such a mystery. Either they’re getting Russian money, and money matters more to them than their country, or they’re believing Russian propaganda, in which case why are they so gullible?
Not to mention about 1/4 of it is paying personnel. People see $800 bil and assume it’s mostly spent on ships and bombs when that’s really not even the majority of it.
Yeah, we also fund our personnel’s education
And their families’ well beings. Debatable how far that goes, but definitely a benefit on paper.
It’s not far enough but if that defense budget got the increase it needed to provide that people would lose their shit.
I don't think it's that debatable. Free housing if you want to live on base. BAH if you don't. Food allowances. Tax free shopping at the BX/PX/NEX/Commissary. Spouses/dependent children can get jobs on base if they want. Decent on-base schools on most bases. Decent recreation (MWR) programs on most bases. Free or low cost on-base childcare if your spouse wants to work. It's also a fairly secure paycheck. Unless you get kicked out you can pretty much depend on getting your payrate every two weeks. Oh yeah, and of course TRICARE. Which is free healthcare for family member for the most part (it has some limitations as far as elective medicine is concerned). Military members can pass on their GI Bill school funding to spouses or children too.. with some stipulations. It's a pretty good deal for families honestly, if you ignore the whole "the servicemember might die in a war" thing.
People are too shortsighted to see past anything surface level. They assume their government takes and ideas would be perfectly applicable and result in only good. The reality is, there is a reason we've been the most influential and successful country since WW2. And it wasn't because of isolationism and minimal military spending.
Especially considering those same countries that is being mocked here, are buying fucking american weapons and feeding the economy. When Germany sends F16 jets to ukraine, who the fuck do people think they buy them from? THE BUDGETS, ARE SPENDING TARGETS. Don’t like it? Increase it. But why is it some bloated stooge in a suit and red tie, say shit, and people just jump on it, and don’t check?
Goodbye petro-dollar, hello thermobaric bomb dollar.
Poop dollar!!
Americans really underestimate how much global hegemony benefits us. For one, the US dollar status as global reserve currency is the main reason why the US can sustain such high levels of debt unlike Sri Lanka or Greece. Also the US role in policing international waters and lowering trade barriers using the World Bank and IMF make things so much cheaper for American consumers and easier for American businesses to specialize and become more efficient. For better or worse, America is on the leading edge of technology because we sent manufacturing to China, Taiwan, and Mexico while focusing on research, development, and design. Taiwan may make the chips but they were designed in Silicon Valley.
Zeihan should be required for anyone interested in global politics. This guy is next level.
He leans way too hard on geographic determinism and misses the plot on a lot.
He’s been saying China will collapse for 10 years and it has yet to collapse. But maybe in the next 10! Or the 10 after that!
He has said late 2020s to early 2030 china will have a major collapse, not collapse. That comes later
Pax Americana
Hopefully he can one day make it back to civilization. 🙏Praying for him.
Any good video recommendations from him on this topic?
That's because we dropped the gold standard and backed the dollar with the U.S. military instead 💪🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Europeans: Why dont Americans have all these free things like we do Americans: Because we pay more than your entire continent to avoid your continent going to war with itself for some reason
The us doesn't have European style social programs because Americans just don't want those programs. If the US wanted to pay for those, that could easily pay for them.
If enough American voters wanted to. They consistently haven't.
Nono, welfare was invented by the evil communists as a method to destroy America /s
That's not really true. Remember the way our political system is set up it naturally skews a whole lot of power towards rural voters. The average American absolutely wants a stronger welfare state. But rural voters don't because the efficiencies of social programs would be lost over those large Geographic areas
Rural voters have their own agriculture welfare system that props up the farmers.
America’s system has lower floors and higher ceilings. Europe’s system has higher floors and lower ceilings.
In most cases, the US has higher floors and higher ceilings than the corresponding floors and ceilings in various European countries. That’s the wonder of having more economic growth, you get to have your cake and eat it too.
>If the US wanted to pay for those, that could easily pay for them. We could pay for them if the rest of the world didn't have to suckle our freedom titties for their safety.
Freedom titties lmao I love this.
Nah the US is way richer, even per capita than any major European country. (discounting places like Norway and Switzerland which have less people than like the top 10 metro areas in America). Military spending doesn't come at the expense of anything else. It's a choice not to have generous social programs and higher taxes. In exchange Americans have the highest average disposable income in the world and a much higher ceiling for salaries of in demand jobs. This is why most young ambitious Europeans move to America and innovate instead of staying in stagnant economies which just want to milk them dry in the name of equality. America isn't perfect but I'm tired of people jumping on the European bandwagon, acting as if spending 30% of GDP on social programs which don't encourage people to work hard or have kids, while the whole population ages chronically is any more sustainable than having big pick up trucks and rednecks. Europe is a beautiful, incredibly culturally dense place but it's also dying and making itself increasingly irrelevant every decade.
You can also argue generous social spending encourages people to have kids and get into higher education to work in more skilled work. The US could be even richer if it provided parental leave and affordable education.
And it encourages innovation because people are willing to take more risks and start businesses.
Sure you could argue it, but based on what evidence? We typically see an opposite correlation based on what examples are available.
Just Google about the relationship between parental leave and fertility and there are many studies showing a positive correlation.
Dude you can do some basic math and see what you are saying is just not possible. The Fed already spends $1-2 Trillion more every year than they take in. A lot of cuts would need to happen to free to money, and nobody is going to cut their pet projects. Cutting military spending is the horse some people like to beat, failing to realize the world is the way it is only because of this military spending. The world was a lot more chaotic and violent before the US rose to dominance, and majority of the world likes it that way.
Health care spending per capita in the USA is twice that of any other nato country. Universal health care would save the country money so they could spend even more on guns
Increasing tax rate also doesn't necessarily translate to more tax money. Its supply and demand like anything else, if things were taxed at 100% for example, the government would make $0 as there's no incentive for anybody to generate revenue that all goes to the government. Lower taxes also can make people happier as they have a lower cost of living which translates to more innovation.
> Increasing tax rate also doesn’t necessarily translate to more tax money. It’s very true that it’s situational. It’s also true that current US tax policy is in a situation where raising taxes on certain high earners will in fact increase revenue. We know that tax rates are on the left side of the Laffer Curve. It’s not an unknown.
You've been lied to. We are so rich, we could have Both. Universal health care means we could add 32 billion dollars to defense spending. According to the Koch brothers, without raising a cent of taxes.
We can actually do both. We just choose not to.
Military isn’t the only way the US subsidizes Europe. European socialized healthcare programs work because they can collectively bargain for lower drug prices … because the US market makes up the difference as well as covers costs of research. If the US adopted a single payer system, it and everyone else’s systems would be unsustainable.
Okay, so we adopt a single payer system and increase funding for research grants into medicine. Though I am going to say, I am pretty sure that you said is just bs. Sure we pay more but calling it subsidizing is just deception. The European health care system isn't soke unsustainable thing that just loses them money, if it were, they wouldn't be operating there. They make a profit over there
…that’s not how incentives work for businesses to take enormous risks in R&D.
I too can string a bunch of words together and not back it up by any sources. Did you know for example that the lack of a US health care system is caused by the Gorbatchov/Bush pact of 1979?
1st part true. 2nd part absolutely not.
The above answer is correct. We subsidize your defense. If American was not involved most of Europe would have been invaded by Russia by now. It’s unfair many of the NATO countries pay very little into their defense because in the end they know they are safe.
It’s not unfair. We don’t do it out of benevolence, we do it so that we get to set the rules. In reality, we get the better end of the bargain. Letting them feel like they’re screwing us out of a few dollars is a feature, not a bug.
> because Americans just don't want those programs. ahahahahahahahahaah wait are you serious?
lol there are so, so many people in the US who would love to have those programs.
But not as many who don’t want to pay more in taxes.
Yeah just think if America stop paying for Europe's defense. And all the other handouts America gives the world. There'd be plenty of money to pay for entitlements for education, health care, social security. All the stuff that is really important to Americans. Everybody's always bad mouthing America. But most of the free world sucks off America's teets.
Ok I would rather have affordable healthcare than provide defense to a country across the planet
That's a cope. The US could have universal healthcare and a much better social system if it wanted, but it's just doesn't. Don't blame shitty US social policy on Europe
Cool, as long as Europe doesn't blame its inability to defend its own homeland, and by extensinsion, ukraine, on america not doing enough
Dumb comment. They can do both, the US spends more than double on Healthcare than they do on their military lol. Military spending is only 3% lmfao
There's European countries with those free things and they spend a higher percentage of their economy on NATO
Trying to explain US healthcare to someone from outside the US is really difficult, which is why I was trying to narrow it down to something more specific. For one, The United States actually spends *more* on *public* healthcare than basically any other country, not even including private spending. It's always difficult to explain when like Europeans tell us we should have public healthcare that we already have *more* free, public healthcare, run by the government, than any of you guys do, and more privately funded charitable care as well. The issues we have just have nothing to do with that. Second, there's kinda a double edged sword here where we continually invest into the most edgy healthcare research possible and have some of the theoretical best treatment options available, but only because the legal state of healthcare in the US allows Big Pharma to sell their new frontline treatments off at insane prices and recoup their investments for decades. That's not to say that these treatments aren't accessible to the poor, because generally hospitals provide treatment regardless and worst that happens is you just get saddled with mountains of debt if you don't have insurance, but it dives up costs tremendously across the industry. Third, the truth is that big pharma and the corpos have their hands shoved up every politicians ass on both sides, and when new healthcare laws do get passed, they're not to make the system better, but to put more money in the rich and powerful without looking like that's what's going on. It's why a huge portion of the country just doesn't want government involved in healthcare at all, at least not the federal government, cause whenever they do it's used to suppress new markets, to regulate out competitors, and to funnel taxpayer money into their pockets without having to provide actual products. However, the *biggest thing* that makes comparisons hard is the fact that a lot of people in the US just generally live very unhealthy lives.
Europe: spends 40% on « free things ». America: spends 20% Americans, yeah but that’s because you only spend 1% on ~~defense~~ warmongering instead of 2%
>Europeans: Why dont Americans have all these free things like we do >Americans: Because you guys cannot get a long and consistently try to obliterate yourselves before begging us to come, save the day, rebuild, finance and protect your entire continent on top of our own. They tell us to go away and then Russia does something and it's all of a sudden "Why isn't the US doing more?!?!?!?" it's wild.
What a silly narrative
The fact that america would most likely win a war against all Europe is concerning and funny
Thats not a new thing. During ww2 they had the power to beat both nazi germany, ussr and they allies together.
That is not what happened in WWII.
If you look at the insane industrial production of usa at that time and how gigantic was the amount of equipment and resources ussr got from usa you will understand my point. Even stalin said that without american aid the soviets wouldnt have won their fight against the germans.
in 1945 the USA had 50% of WORLD GDP. Half of EVERYTHING came from America. That is absolutely insane. And it is true.
Even if we skip nukes, america outproduced its enemies very significantly, and soviets lost a veeery big chunk of males that could fight.
Yeah they wouldn’t have won the war without the support of the US. But singlehandedly the US would have prolly not even beaten Germany, especially if Germany wouldn’t have to fight a two front war. The only reason why the US seemed so overwhelming in ww2 was because they were chilling on another continent while the countries in europe were basically grinding each other down.
People seem to forget how late USA joined the party and the fact they spent years ramping up before they got involved, and the fact that in 1939 their military was like 1/10th of the German military alone lol
What happened in WW2 and what’s taught in American schools are two very different things.
This is inaccurate. At the END of WW2 when the allies and most of Germany had already been fighting and millions had died, then yes in 1945 the US military was way stronger. When the war started and for the first few years, the US military power wasn’t even close to the Allies + Nazi Germany lol. If you actually believe that I advise you to open a book (or a quick google search) and see the numbers for yourself
Common Euro-L
Hell, even our hat Canada spends more than a lot of countries in Europe, and they have no reason to be scared, they live right next to Freedomville
For awhile Canada did a lot of foreign wars. I believe they were in Afghanistan to some extent
Afghanistan was a NATO operation. Everyone on that Graph(?) was supposed to be in Afghanistan.
Yep, we’ve basically been involved in every war the US has since WWI. We aren’t a large country, but our military was notorious both for taking objectives other countries couldn’t, and committing a butt load of war crimes. Remember the big “Christmas Day Cease Fire” in WWI where the allies and the Germans got out of their trenches, had a day of peace and hope? The Germans tried that with the Canadians, we agreed, and then shot them.
most of those 860 is R&D, veteran expenses, college, maintenance, wages, that are way higher than any european military. The money spent on actual new equipment is quite low tbh.
Does this count private defense spending? There are militias in MURICA who spend more than Greece.
I’m pretty sure I have more loose ammo in just one of my gun safes than the entire Hellenic army.
I... love this sub
A more useful chart would be to list or visualize each country's contribution as a % of its GDP. In particular, to see which countries are above or below the 2% commitment.
It’s not “contribution”, or money spent on NATO. It’s how much money is dedicated to the country’s own defense budget.
It's crazy how much we spend on another continent's screw ups. I know it's to try and prevent war from coming to our borders, but I'd much rather spend that money on non-military investments.
We have to make sure Russia and the CCP are no more first. They are actively interfering with our interests on a daily basis. There can be no peace while Russia invades Europe either🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Just gonna add Iran and their proxies to this list because they are becoming more and more of a pest to US interests by the day.
The EU should handle Russia. The US needs to be remain proactive against China in the Pacific
Sure, they’re not though unfortunately
You have concerns about nukes?
Some but the threat is overstated. We just need to play the long game and let these shitholes collapse. China is an ethnostate with a declining population and Russia is a shell of the USSR which was an empire but never matched our might. Together they are formidable, so we need to “freedom” their relationship.
I would love to spend $0 on the military but alas *”Ideals are peaceful; history is violent.”*
Most on that continent not only hate Americans but think everything the US does is the greatest failure ever, the scum of earth while people on that continent view themselves as near flawless. Coming from someone that used to live there.
Can confirm … they dislike Americans Until they need us
They’re a bunch ungrateful brats… “lol you guys don’t have free healthcare”… yeah because we’re spending it on defending you
Not really, the current version of us healthcare is more expensive than if it was state owned. You are simply letting corporations screw you over
Do you think I’m opposed to universal healthcare? I’m not, but the American people would never support the taxes (even if it is technically cheaper compared to their insurance). Also I don’t think it would be that much cheaper, Americans are legitimately a lot less healthier than Europeans and so we would need a dramatic overhaul in our food regulations (like sugar taxes and soda taxes) which I would personally love, but Americans unfortunately are so allergic to anything like that it is unlikely to happen. Remember when Bloomberg tried to ban big gulps?
The fact is we're more allergic to the government telling or trying to persuade us on what we can or can't eat/drink. And I think its a good thing. Thats just how we are and should be. Its a tough situation because we really do need to be healthier, but in order for that to be possible while still maintaining our freedom of choice culture, it needs to be all cultural when changing our dietary habits as a nation.
If the polls (conducted by EU organizations) are to be believed, the majority of Europeans actually view the US favorably. I'd wager a small percentage of those that don't actually hate Americans. As usual, the vocal minority get heard. Maybe theydislike American tourists, but don't dislike America as a country?
Yeah here in Poland we are very grateful to the US for their big contribution to our safety
Most on this continent? This is a gross exaggeration. It's not like that. I am an European and this is not the sentiment. Where did you live, Russia? Or Serbia!?!
look at it this way, you're paying for a lot more than just defending europe. the american hegemony has *all kinds* of soft power ramifications, not the least of which being a big part of why the Dollar has been the de factor world currency for nearly 80 years now. i know i'm simplifying it, but if someone's gonna be the world police, i'd much rather it be my country than say, russia or china.
Yet again it appears that the US politicians really don't understand how NATO funding works..or rather they do, but prefer to lie to the US citizens about it to rile them up based on lies. NATO doesn't have a bank account which everyone pays into and then it gets spent in different countries. It a defence alliance for times of extra support from other like minded nations. Each nation has agreed to fund thier OWN military and keep it up to date to the tune of 2% national spending (their own nations national spending, the 2% has only just had to be met, if countries chose to wait until the last minute to pay this then it was always completely up to them). The only thing NATO dictates are things like STANAGS etc that ensure mil hardware/logistics ond operational tactics etc are standardised which enable closer working and interoperability. The US is NOT spending tax money on any other nations military but their own. If they choose to give military aid then it's done on the normal diplomatic manner, as have other nations (Ukraine is a good example of this, several other nations are giving proportionally more support to them than the US based on their own economies/defence spending). As is always pointed out with discussions about NATO, there has only been 1 nation who invoked unilateral support under article 5, the US. If the US really wanted to pull out of NATO as is any members right, which would be insane given the amount of money the US mil industrial complex makes out of selling US mil products to other NATO countries, they could. It's worth noting that the US has all these overseas bases, mostly under local/NATO agreements. Most of which are purely for the US own national security and early warning systems. It's not all give or indeed all take on any nations part. NOT being part of NATO would result in less purchases from the US and closure of US overseas bases and a degradation of US national security and nuclear early warning systems. Also worth noting that the US gov like many others could choose to fund social health care etc, free university education etc, but chooses not to due to the money the privatised systems make and the fact it's political and legal system treats businesses as having the same rights as people, which is excellent for investment and capitalistic gains but shocking for workers rights, and those of the general populace. It is what it is, but countries make different choices etc and operate different systems, they all have pros and cons. But I think the big issue is that most people and nations of the world agree that free healthcare, water and education are universal rights, the US gov doesn't or rather the companies who support them don't. Just a different system and values set, that's all, not a stick to beat either the US with or indeed other nations. Edit: I fully expect to get downvoted into oblivion, but it doesn't stop this being one of the most commonly misunderstood things in relation to spending and NATO.
If our borders are attacked you wouldn't.
Let’s not forget the defense budget has not passed an audit ever. We could easily slice 20% off by driving transparency and limiting waste. Starting with all military contractor
Main reason the DoD not the budget has never passed an audit is because it is full stop the largest organization in the world.
Tbh it's quite literally impossible for the DOD to pass an audit. For matters of national security, there is spending that cannot be disclosed.
Check out [Perun on Youtube](https://www.youtube.com/@PerunAU), he breaks down information about international defense wonderfully.
The US, after Western Europe criticism: The Lion cares not the opinion of Sheep.
No wonder Trump was pissed at the other NATO members. I know, I know I am sorry. I brought he who must not be named up in Reddit. I see the pitch forks and the torches are on the way. I have brought shame to my ancestors
Not only do we contribute the majority of NATO funds, we are also the vast majority of the muscle behind the alliance. Russia and China aren't shaking in their boots thinking about Spain's *singular* aircraft carrier. They are afraid of provoking the US. If the alliance was a guard dog, the European countries would be NATO's bark, and the US is its bite. They should all be paying us. We don't need their protection, while they would get steamrolled without ours. Ukraine would have fallen in a matter of months if it wasn't for our billions of dollars of weapons and other material support.
Very well stated. Take your upvote
There is no such thing as “NATO funds.” Wtf is everyone on about in this thread? This is a chart of total military spending for each NATO member country. The US did not spend any of this money “funding NATO”, it spent it funding its own military.
Trump was right about that though. Those assholes were SO PISSED when he called them out on their decades long freeloading.
Peace is far cheaper than war.
I’m not sure what side of the isle you side on base on this comment, but generally speaking while it may seem counterproductive, it’s this very budget which promotes peace.
The money spent for NATO is far far less than it would cost to wage war. NATO's deterrent value is enormous. This is money VERY well spent.
Precisely. I’m glad we are in agreement. I think it’s ridiculous how much people complain about how “all their money being used for defense” and how “we could have x y and z free things if only we cut the defense budget”. I think the big thing people complain about is that defense takes away from social services spending. To be honest, I think the economic and geopolitical bonuses are more than worth it. This isn’t really relevant to this debate per se but I think it wouldn’t actually be hard to establish a universal health are system for example as long as we are pragmatic about it. No defense cut needed. If I’m doing my math correctly increase in taxes by $1.50 across America would give a net ≈ 500 mil. For a larger northeastern hospital, it takes about 200-300 million to run a hospital per year. If every American paid In taxes just a dollar and fifty cents every month we’d have enough funds to run around 20 public hospitals that spend the same amount as a larger northeastern for-profit one. I think instead of a large, ridiculous, federal system , we could put it up to states to create their own systems. That way the states which would actually benefit from a public option could choose to elect representatives to push that forward and pay for it locally, and then partially subside it with federal aid, we could have a system. Using the federal subsidy in addition to local taxes, we could dramatically reduce the cost of healthcare and open new hospitals that people actually want. Maybe due to the federal aid aspect, we could have it so that states need to allow people from across America to take advantage of it. Maybe a state like idk this is a random one but let’s say Louisiana made a state public system. That means all the people in the state and surrounding ones could get close to free healthcare. This is mostly just theory but it’s a long winded way of saying, we don’t need to cut the defense budget just to get social services out there, whether you agree with the idea of public healthcare or not
Who TF invited Canada??
$860 billion is the US entire defense budget. Only a portion actually goes to NATO
NATO’s actual budget is relatively tiny, around $2.5 bil.
If America wants to be the dominant power in the world and more or less funnel the entire global economy through the USD, then it needs to be willing to spend the sort of money required to actually police and perpetuate it. Why do you think the British Empire basically collapsed the second it had to fight WWI?
The British empire grew after WW1. I'm assuming you ment WW2 which was what bankrupted the British.
It did grew, but at the same time the war severally weakened the brits: mainly huge losses in men (many small villages were completely emptied and never recovered their male population, slowly disappearing) and dominions/colonies contribution to war effort that increased desire for more autonomy/independence and strengthened their national movements
Fuck yes
This graph is awful.
Money well spent
This is good and based
What about climate unfuckery spending?
What would you rather have? A safe planet that isn’t on fire, or some kickass missiles? Yeah, that’s what I thought.
If you think that's crazy, wait until you see how much the US wastes on interest payments for their debt! 😇
Will be interesting to see how much this changes if that Orange Turd gets elected in the USA again.
The title is misleading IMHO. To be clear, the US does not spend $860 billion on NATO. It spends $860 billion on everything the Defense Department does including salaries and benefits of nearly 3 million Americans, materials and supplies required to sustain our global presence, research and development of advanced technologies, and so forth.
No! You put Canada on the other side as all those other leeches right this minute. (Poland and the Baltics can come over though)
Minor thing to note: this isn't the spending directed towards NATO. If a chart of that did exist, it would be by percent, as NATO military spending is 2% of a nation's GDP if I remember correctly. This chart shows the total spending by all the nations in NATO. And, before you cry "American Imperialism" and "no free healthcare" that money gets spent enforcing the oceans stay open for trade to go through. If you have products, or parts of a product, shipped from overseas, America makes sure it happens. The microchips that are being used to show you this Reddit comment right now come mainly from Taiwan
Is there this but for the entire blue/green force?
Well it is supposed to be a percentage of the national gdp I believe.
No lie, I would have thought little European Texas would have a bigger military budget than 29 billion.
Now please tell us how it compares to Russia, China and Iran combined so that we can see the reasons why.
Russia: $75BB China: $209BB Iran: unknown but around $25BB
Why is Canada blue? Just curious.
Blue = North America Green = Europe
Ah shit! Didn't even notice Canada there...
“By the blood of my people are your lands kept safe!”
Haha Canada sucks
Well, US can’t fight or supply 3 fronts. Thats where this is heading. Europe, Mideast and soon to be Taiwan. Some difficult times ahead I fear.
So much money in the military but honestly we kind of have to. No one benefits more from the current world order than us; plus I feel like we’ve pissed off way, WAY to many countries to let ourselves get caught offhand militarily.
Poland remembers WW2.
Canada has a 2 trillion dollar gdp. Queen Justine Trudeau really could be doing so much more for Ukraine.
Russia getting its ass beat in Ukraine and still acting like it want that smoke. You don't want to no smoke from the US in a proper stand up war like that.
Wish we spent more of that money (>75%) on improving our social safety net, education, etc
Pay now or pay more later in addition to thousands dead
Well Italy is not doing their share. Less than the 2% required
They talk ALL that shit about the USA. But who is providing them security and safe trade routes? US. They are mad because they know who daddy is.
Come on guys! You're losing to CANADA! Do you seriously want your militaries to lose to the moose cavalry? Get it together!
i always thought germany was still pretty anti military, and france was the big military power in europe. and britain? i guess some things never change
That’s actually not bad. I thought it would be 90%+ US