Posted on Jun 21, 2015
U.S. calls for NATO members to increase defense spending are met with resistance. What do you think the U.S. response should be?
3.56K
14
8
1
1
0
Calls by US Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James that NATO members increase defense spending have met with support, but also criticism that the US fails to understand Europe's economic and political difficulties.
James made the impassioned plea in a June 17 keynote speech in Brussels in which she cautioned against the dangers of cutting defense budgets at a time when NATO and the West face an assortment of global security threats.
The UK government has been criticized over its failure to meet NATO guidelines and commit to spending 2 percent of its GDP on defense beyond the end of this financial year.
While not naming any NATO or EU countries, James urged NATO members to resist pressures to cut defense spending, adding, "Indeed, rather than cutting defense budgets I would argue that spending should be increased."
A UK government spokesman said, "When we came into government in 2010 we faced a massive budget deficit, including a £38 billion defense black hole. We had to make difficult decisions to turn that around and balance the budget.
"Britain's £34 billion a year defense budget is now the second biggest in NATO and the largest in the EU. That means our armed forces can play an active role across the world and we are investing in the latest military equipment. We are meeting the 2 percent NATO target this year. Decisions for spending in 2016/17 and beyond are for the spending review.
"We can only have strong, well-funded armed forces if we have a strong economy. Our manifesto commitments will ensure the shape and power of our armed forces by maintaining the size of the regular armed forces; increasing the equipment budget by 1 percent above inflation every year; and building four new Successor ballistic missile submarines."
The UK Independence Party (UKIP), which polled 4 million votes in the recent British general election, criticized the US for expecting financially stricken Eurozone nations such as Greece to increase defense spending.
"However, it appears that Mrs. James, like the rest of the Obama administration, is unaware of the economically devastating effects of the Eurozone on many NATO members.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/defense/policy-budget/budget/2015/06/20/nato-spending-us-air-force-deborah-lee-james-russia-islamic-state/28919153/
James made the impassioned plea in a June 17 keynote speech in Brussels in which she cautioned against the dangers of cutting defense budgets at a time when NATO and the West face an assortment of global security threats.
The UK government has been criticized over its failure to meet NATO guidelines and commit to spending 2 percent of its GDP on defense beyond the end of this financial year.
While not naming any NATO or EU countries, James urged NATO members to resist pressures to cut defense spending, adding, "Indeed, rather than cutting defense budgets I would argue that spending should be increased."
A UK government spokesman said, "When we came into government in 2010 we faced a massive budget deficit, including a £38 billion defense black hole. We had to make difficult decisions to turn that around and balance the budget.
"Britain's £34 billion a year defense budget is now the second biggest in NATO and the largest in the EU. That means our armed forces can play an active role across the world and we are investing in the latest military equipment. We are meeting the 2 percent NATO target this year. Decisions for spending in 2016/17 and beyond are for the spending review.
"We can only have strong, well-funded armed forces if we have a strong economy. Our manifesto commitments will ensure the shape and power of our armed forces by maintaining the size of the regular armed forces; increasing the equipment budget by 1 percent above inflation every year; and building four new Successor ballistic missile submarines."
The UK Independence Party (UKIP), which polled 4 million votes in the recent British general election, criticized the US for expecting financially stricken Eurozone nations such as Greece to increase defense spending.
"However, it appears that Mrs. James, like the rest of the Obama administration, is unaware of the economically devastating effects of the Eurozone on many NATO members.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/defense/policy-budget/budget/2015/06/20/nato-spending-us-air-force-deborah-lee-james-russia-islamic-state/28919153/
Posted in these groups: 
International AffairsNATO
International AffairsNATO
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
3
3
0
Just because the US spends nearly HALF of the entire world's total on defense, doesn't mean others should...perhaps this could be a reason so many countries hate America and want to harm us.
The biggest spenders are always right because they spend the most....just don't expect the US to continue to pay the bills Europeans Nations will not.
The biggest spenders are always right because they spend the most....just don't expect the US to continue to pay the bills Europeans Nations will not.
(3)
(0)
SGT(P) (Join to see)
The united states does NOT spend what it seems we do. A better way to look at defense spending is actually presented for you on this chart. By looking at the percent of GDP that goes towards military spending, we know how much money goes towards military spending based on population size and country growth. If anything the united states is on the lower end of the spectrum, outdone by Russia and Arab nations, which should scare us all. As far as china, well you don't have to pay or equip communist soldiers, you just have to brain wash and beat them until they do what they are told.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
The US response should be simple. We will continue to fulfill all of our NATO treaty obligations but we will no longer contribute to the defense of NATO at a higher rate than the European countries of NATO. The US has subsidized the defense of NATO for decades to the point where American taxpayers are paying for what European taxpayers are not willing to pay for. Why should the US care more about the defense of Europe than Europeans do?
(3)
(0)
PO2 Skip Kirkwood
As long as we are willing to pay the costs of their defense, why would they consider increasing expenditures.
How about we spend what we need on OUR defense and leave theirs to them?
How about we spend what we need on OUR defense and leave theirs to them?
(1)
(0)
COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM
PO2 Kirkwood,
- Agree with your first sentence. That is why we need a forcing function to influence other NATO members' behavior. The caveat is that we must follow up and follow thru on any threatened reduced funding we make to the NATO members. I think the current ally and enemy read on the current administration is that they are all talk and no action.
- Disagree with your second sentence/question. The US signed a treaty and we must fulfill our treaty obligations or the loss of credibility will be far worse for future treaties and for this treaty.
- Agree with your first sentence. That is why we need a forcing function to influence other NATO members' behavior. The caveat is that we must follow up and follow thru on any threatened reduced funding we make to the NATO members. I think the current ally and enemy read on the current administration is that they are all talk and no action.
- Disagree with your second sentence/question. The US signed a treaty and we must fulfill our treaty obligations or the loss of credibility will be far worse for future treaties and for this treaty.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The Europeans will do as little as they can each get away with and spend the rest of their time pointing fingers at other NATO members. If they cannot agree that the protection and defense of their union is a priority then they risk having it crumble and possibly be overrun by more aggressive nations.
If they thought the risks were higher they would be spending like it was. Right now, some are getting away with not spending in trying economic times. The economic concerns will stop only when the first tank rolls across someone's border. That is one of the lessons we should have learned in that area of the world.
If they thought the risks were higher they would be spending like it was. Right now, some are getting away with not spending in trying economic times. The economic concerns will stop only when the first tank rolls across someone's border. That is one of the lessons we should have learned in that area of the world.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google