Support NeoGAF

[Guy.brush]

Please tell me this is a real reaction to some garbage Trump is spewing.

It is! This is the exact moment when Trump mentioned NATO members need to pay more during a speech at the NATO summit that was to honor a 9/11 memorial and he never mentioned Article 5 once.

Btw if Germany would spend 3% on its military they would have like 500.000 standing soldiers again. Either that or they'd need to seriously invest in high tech weaponry or nukes.
V3 anyone?

 

[Brashnir]

"I knew you would ask a tough question but you have your opinion on what it stands for and I have my opinion. Of course I know, who wouldn't know? Would be sad if I didn't know but I know but I won't say it cause only losers say it and I definitely know what NAOT stands for."

"Of course I know what it stands for. I watched SharkNATO like 7 or 8 times. I'm basically an expert."

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

The spending target just got 1% higher

 

[darscot]

Dole out back pay, LMAO. You gotta love Trump math, non binding NATO agreement, fuck you pay me. Non binding Paris agreement we are losing trillions we have to get out of this deal.

 

[Jisgsaw]

Btw if Germany would spend 3% on its military they would have like 500.000 standing soldiers again. Either that or they'd need to seriously invest in high tech weaponry or nukes.
V3 anyone?

Which they both are not allowed to have.

 

[Muffin1611]

Oh my god. I didn't think Trump could annoy me more in regards to the 2% guideline and the extensive thread we had about it, but here we are.

What does he want us Germans to do, equip footsoldiers with Iron Man suits? Mechs?

 

[El Topo]

Oh my god. I didn't think Trump could annoy me more in regards to the 2% guideline and the extensive thread we had about it, but here we are.

What does he want us Germans to do, equip footsoldiers with Iron Man suits? Mechs?

Guess we'll just increase their wages.

 

[Jasup]

Let's make it 4% while we're at it.

It's literally just finding excuses to get out of NATO obligations and dismantling the pact completely in the process.

 

[MonorailCat]

Which they both are not allowed to have.

Germany is allowed to have nuclear weapons . They just don't want to have them.

edit: or to make it clearer: there is no law or post-ww2 ban by the allies against them. germany just signed a voluntary no-nuke treaty.

 

[luckygodzilla]

This would all be avoided if people would've just voted.

As someone who strongly believes that member states should be held to the 2% spending requirement, all I have to really say on the matter is that this is absolute bullshit.

 

[azyless]

As someone who strongly believes that member states should be held to the 2% spending requirement, all I have to really say on the matter is that this is absolute bullshit.

There is no spending requirement.

 

[Fancyarcher]

If only Trump had actual brain-cells, if only.

 

[Palette Swap]

He treats NATO like an America brand other countries can apply on their armies, because that's the only thing his tremendous business experience has taught him.
That, and fucking up what he inherited.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Dole out back pay.... to who?

 

[Xando]

Germany is allowed to have nuclear weapons . They just don't want to have them.

edit: or to make it clearer: there is no law or post-ww2 ban by the allies against them. germany just signed a voluntary no-nuke treaty.

It isn't voluntary. It is a clause within the 2+4 treaty which would mean if germany violates it legally there would be 2 germanys again should someone decide to sue

 

[darkinstinct]

Is he expecting an alien invasion?

I think he just wants to have more money so he can buy more weapons from US producers and create jobs with foreign money.

 

[truestatic]

Dole out back pay.... to who?

The US obviously. I believe the implication is that the USA has been covering other member nation's share of the bill.

 

[Steel]

The US obviously. I believe the implication is that the USA has been covering other member nation's share of the bill.

Technically true, though. But it's not like a bunch of smaller countries chipping in their full 2% would make a difference. And it's not like that's worth burning international relations over.

 

[BrassDragon]

You get an aircraft carrier, you get an aircraft carrier, you get an aircraft carrier, everybody gets an aircraft carrier!

Seriously, what's the strategy behind this nonsense? Do we need to be able to defeat a Russian invasion without trans-Atlantic supply lines, should we be able to occupy and nation build two, three, four countries at the same time, do we need to be able to project force into Central Africa, are we going to have a 21st century crusade to crush ISIS and conquer the holy land, WHAT?

There are some real concerns, like not being able to keep up with the operational tempo of international efforts, the lack of credible air defense, no refueling capabilities, inadequate cyber defense and poor integration of combined arms... but the spending percentage is so meaningless without doctrine and grand strategy.

 

[Fast Forward]

I think it is pretty obvious the average American has no real concept of just how much America spends on the military as it is. Let alone, we far/away out rank everyone else, and even than, most of those countries following us on the top military spending list are fucking allies of the USA.

 

[GuyKazama]

The US in the past has asked for 2% and hasn't seen it. Asking for 3% and getting 2% would be a nice improvement. NATO members not meeting their obligations have nothing to complain about. The US shouldn't forever be the world police force.

 

[Hyun Sai]

Luxembourg should definitely get several aircraft carriers. Like in Winter Soldier.

 

[Mivey]

Not every country is interested in projecting power through millitary strength, for most it's just about defense, and Europe in general doesn't need to spend trillions to ward of Russia. A unified response, in any form, would do the job and without that all the money in the world won't help you.

 

[azyless]

The US in the past has asked for 2% and hasn't seen it. Asking for 3% and getting 2% would be a nice improvement. NATO members not meeting their obligations have nothing to complain about. The US shouldn't forever be the world police force.

There is no obligation to be met.
And the only reason the US is the "world police" is because they want to be.

 

[kingkaiser]

We(Germany) are gonna run out of space to park all these new carriers

Project Kaiser Wilhelm II - A place in the sun Part 2

 

[guybrushfreeman]

I'm so sick of Americans insulting their allies but not bothering to understand how NATO works. Try to understand something before you go around making demands of your allies. Ridiculous

Edit: Please cut your military budget Trump. Literally no one in the world wants it to be so large and no one anywhere asked you to raise it

 

[Escape Goat]

Temp is a douchebaggery of a magnitude never seen before but what's wrong with asking nations to honor their pledge?

 

[guybrushfreeman]

Temp is a douchebaggery of a magnitude never seen before but what's wrong with asking nations to honor their pledge?

Everyone already is

 

[Escape Goat]

Everyone already is

That's not what the OP sys.

 

[azyless]

Temp is a douchebaggery of a magnitude never seen before but what's wrong with asking nations to honor their pledge?

The non-binding agreement for certain nations to target 2% by 2024 you mean ?

 

[Dehnus]

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/09...sels-visit-transatlantic-relationship-europe/

Trumpaloompa:"my defence contractors lobbygroups tell me you don't buy enough of our boombooms. We make the best boombooms huge boombooms. You should buy more! Superior to those evil German boombooms!"

 

[Xando]

That's not what the OP sys.

2% isn't binding. It's a guideline to be achieved in 2024.

Even then it's nonsense

 

[nephilimdj]

In before Comey confirms this is fake news

 

[guybrushfreeman]

That's not what the OP sys.

There is no requirement the states ramp up to 2% instantly. That would be a disaster. How many hospitals should they close to meet it today? How many schools would be acceptable? To buy what exactly? Tanks that sit there doing nothing? Who would that benefit exactly?

The agreement has always allowed states to each 2% spending in a way that it actually beneficial to the alliance. How is the alliance stronger by forcing members to cut other services to increase the military budget for no reason? It's nonsense and insulting.

The agreement has always been met. Members need to reach that spending in a responsible way or there's no benefit to anyone

 

[Escape Goat]

The non-binding agreement for certain nations to target 2% by 2024 you mean ?

I guess if that's the Pledge mentioned in the OP.

 

[Nightfall]

We need the Phantom Thieves of Hearts to infiltrate his castle... where are they? Where's the calling card?

 

[guybrushfreeman]

I guess if that's the Pledge mentioned in the OP.

Try to understand something before you go around making demands of your allies. Ridiculous

I'll just quote myself for this one

 

[Chairmanchuck]

We(Germany) are gonna run out of space to park all these new carriers

Even then we also dont have enough personell in the German Navy...

 

[ClosingADoor]

Temp is a douchebaggery of a magnitude never seen before but what's wrong with asking nations to honor their pledge?

Nothing wrong with asking, but this was already taken care of. Now he is just repeating himself, and on top of that coming up with new stuff. Oh, and that increase in spending? That was agreed upon while Obama was President a few years back already.

NATO is a defensive alliance. If the US wants to spent money floating around aircraft carriers in the Pacific, that is their choice, but they shouldn't then come whining that the US is spending so much on military while the European partners never asked for most what they are doing.

The EU needs to spent more on military, since some parts are just not very well funded. But Trump is having no idea what he is doing and how is approach is damaging relations with other NATO countries.

 

[MUnited83]

and he even threatened to cut back U.S. defense spending

LMAO, I can hear all NATO members laughing at at this. Fucking do that you dumbass, NATO members couldn't give a flying fuck if the US start having a actually sensible budget for defense instead of wasting away huge amounts of money that could be used for something good.

Whats the significance of him not mentioning russia?

Do you understand what NATO is?

Temp is a douchebaggery of a magnitude never seen before but what's wrong with asking nations to honor their pledge?

It's literally a impossible goal for many of the countries , would destroy economies, would be a literal complete waste of money, and wouldn't actually make NATO stronger. NATO needs to change the parameters so it actually counts money spent in actual measures for peacekeeping and maintaining the world stable. In which case the US would be far far behind.

 

[Shadow Puppetry]

What, Merkel explaining to Trump how NATO works eleven times wasn't enough to go through Trump's thick toupee?

 

[Lonely1]

European fortified moonbase. Go go!

 

[Timbuktu]

He does know that the US doesn't collect this (voluntary goal) money, right?

Of course he doesn't

Maybe that extra 1% has to be spent on hardware from American companies owned by buddies he golfs with.

 

[ShironRedshift]

There is no requirement the states ramp up to 2% instantly. That would be a disaster. How many hospitals should they close to meet it today? How many schools would be acceptable? To buy what exactly? Tanks that sit there doing nothing? Who would that benefit exactly?

The agreement has always allowed states to each 2% spending in a way that it actually beneficial to the alliance. How is the alliance stronger by forcing members to cut other services to increase the military budget for no reason? It's nonsense and insulting.

The agreement has always been met. Members need to reach that spending in a responsible way or there's no benefit to anyone

Indeed. It's important to consider that not only is the agreement non-binding, but it doesn't even make sense to lock all member states to spending the same exact 2% of their GDP on military spending to begin with.

Consider a member like the Czech Republic. Prague is completely landlocked by Germany, Poland, Austria, and Slovakia. Therefore, they have absolutely no need for a Navy or stuff like aircraft carriers or submarines. However, despite this, they're still a part of the same 2% informal agreement as everyone else. Therefore, to meet that, Prague would either have to buy stuff like aircraft carriers and submarines regardless, or otherwise spend on a disproportionate amount of their GDP on other armed services branches such as the Army or Air Force despite them not actually needing a larger Army or Air Force than the other nations. But, it doesn't matter. To reach 2% either they would have to buy aircraft carriers they don't need or otherwise buy way more planes and tanks than they could possibly ever need.

That's why the informal, non-binding agreement doesn't make sense and won't be strictly adhered to. Not only is it non-binding and nothing more than a goal at best, but the agreement isn't written in a way that it makes sense for everyone to try to meet to begin with and it would result in A LOT of unnecessary and wasteful spending if they tried.

 

[Lonely1]

Maybe that extra 1% has to be spent on hardware from American companies owned by buddies he golfs with.

They should do it by investing on developing a self sustained military industry and stop buying American. Imagine the burn!

 

[darkinstinct]

The US in the past has asked for 2% and hasn't seen it. Asking for 3% and getting 2% would be a nice improvement. NATO members not meeting their obligations have nothing to complain about. The US shouldn't forever be the world police force.

1.) They love to be the world police

2.) There is no obligation to spend money. 2 % is a guideline of what NATO members should spend by 2024. However that guideline was set as completely voluntarily because the members could not decide if they should include development aid budgets in that guideline. A lot of the countries that don't meet the 2 % guideline spend up to 1 % of their GDP on development aid, which is just another tool for peace. The US however, while spending 3.3 % GDP on defense, spend less than 0.1 % GDP for development aid (because America First). And that's why there is a disconnect between NATO members. Trump thinks peace can be made by firing a million dollar bomb on a Syrian village, EU thinks peace can be made by providing jobs and education to that Syrian village.

 

[MUnited83]

The US in the past has asked for 2% and hasn't seen it. Asking for 3% and getting 2% would be a nice improvement. NATO members not meeting their obligations have nothing to complain about. The US shouldn't forever be the world police force.

It isn't a obligation, it hasn't ever been a obligation. And let's face it, only people who have no fucking idea what they are talking about think 2% makes any kind of sense. Btw, the US doesn't seem to stop wanting to be the world police. In fact, it seems they only spend more and more on it with each passing year.
It's also a pretty fucking shitty "police force" that manages to fuck up the world and deestabilize it than do much of anything to help.

I'm so sick of Americans insulting their allies but not bothering to understand how NATO works. Try to understand something before you go around making demands of your allies. Ridiculous

Edit: Please cut your military budget Trump. Literally no one in the world wants it to be so large and no one anywhere asked you to raise it

My favorite thing about these threads are Americans that have been indoctrinated into the ARMY ARMY ARMY IS THE BEST USA USA mindset that have absolutely no understanding of basic economy and budgeting, as well as any knowledge of geopolitical matters.

 

[Hierophant]

let us build more bombs to blow more people up yay

 

[Orniletter]

Technically true, though. But it's not like a bunch of smaller countries chipping in their full 2% would make a difference. And it's not like that's worth burning international relations over.

Absolutely not even technically true. It's not like Clinton /Bush Mk.II /Obama looked at Germany's ~1.2 % spending and went "Gee, better spend more on Europe to make up for that !" like you are moving troops in a game of risk or something.

Nato's deterrence is in getting the USA involved in a potential conflict in the first place, not America's ""massive"" standing force and infrastructure in europe.

 

[Westbahnhof]

Btw if Germany would spend 3% on its military they would have like 500.000 standing soldiers again. Either that or they'd need to seriously invest in high tech weaponry or nukes.
V3 anyone?

This made me curious.
Has anyone here's done the math (because I don't even know where to start) what exactly 3% invested in German military could look like?
I have no idea how much that would buy, no idea about pricing and whatnot.