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 6mos6MO
NATO stipulations say you must use 2% of your gdp , it should be followed or renegotiated if that is no longer acceptable
@9H4W9GJRepublican6mos6MO
NATO countries should not reap the benefits of the organizations if they cannot or will not agree to the stipulations of the treaty.
@Kaiwantsanap 7mos7MO
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
@9HLWQ69Libertarian5mos5MO
We should not involve ourselves in foreign conflicts. Taking sides in a foreign conflict risks making the US more enemies and earns us a reputation as world police. Like the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Middle East, etc.
@9H54TVR6mos6MO
If we do not defend our partners it would cause a serious domino effect. If powers such as Russia start to act with impunity then we will have lost the free world
@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
@9HLWQ69Libertarian5mos5MO
NATO was established to deter the spread of Soviet influence in Europe. Since the wall fell over 30 years ago, NATO is obsolete.
@9FT9HDX7mos7MO
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
@9H4CTBZ6mos6MO
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 7mos7MO
We are all human beings. What makes your life more valuable than theirs? What makes their safety and freedom less precious? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
@9L58VGS2mos2MO
Opposition to NATO tends to mainly come from pacifist organisations, workers movements, environmental groups and green parties, and socialist and communist political parties. Many of them believe NATO to be antithetical to global peace and stability, environmentally destructive, and an obstacle to nuclear disarmament.
@9H54TVR6mos6MO
NATO has been an essential piece of global defense since the Cold War. We should not leave them when we have been a part of them for so long
@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.
@8XHGB7HLibertarian2yrs2Y
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
@9GZDTYYIndependent6mos6MO
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.
@9MFBRSL1 day1D
Yes, but we should still be more forceful in demanding that other members pay their fair share. We should use whatever pressure is needed
@9MDD3XT3 days3D
A comparable ratio of military to GDP spending should be reflected in how NATO votes and makes decisions in its operations. More involvement, more investment, more control. And it should be a ratio/percentage, to be fair to smaller countries.
@9MC3GN54 days4D
Yes we should defend other nato countries, but only if they are in desperate need, and they are our allies.
@9MBZKP35 days5D
This is what i mean by having extended NATO membership to every nation in Europe to the point we have many now we are obligated to protect-thus putting us in a dangerous situation.
@9M9GBBHRepublican6 days6D
Only support more valuable NATO allies and the rest can get help from any other NATO associated countries
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...
