Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On June 28, 1914, the Archduke of Austro-Hungary was shot and killed. The sudden shifting of Europe's geopolitical tectonic plates brought on earthquakes. Russia supported the Serbs, and France joined Russia. Germany and Austro-Hungary allied in opposition. WWI was on.
US President Woodrow Wilson initially didn't want involvement. The U.S. was about 9% German, and we had no quarrel with the Germans. Wilson issued a proclamation of neutrality in August 1914. But in April 1917, Wilson asked the Congress for a declaration of war. He went full-force. In Jan 2017 the Army had 200,000 troops. By the end of 2017--over 4 million. The war cost the US $112 billion, more that the entire cost of operating the federal gov't from 1789 to 1917. The new federal income tax of 1913 had a top rate of 7%. This spiked to 77% to fund the war.
Fast forward to about 1980. The USSR economy was in a shambles. There was one obvious solution: expansion by military force. They had 4.8 million men under arms, with 180 divisions, backed by 50,000 tanks and 20,000 artillery pieces. The configuration suggested preparation for more than just defense of the homeland. Europe would have had no chance. But the USSR never invaded, doubtless due to a fear of the US military, which Reagan was busily building.
Forward again to 2018. European defense spending remains low, in order to fund their generous welfare states. NATO countries have agreed to spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense. As can be seen in Graph 2 at the link below, only 4 of 29 NATO members meet the 2% agreement. The median is 1.3%. Fourteen laggard nations are under 1.3% https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2...2018-16-en.pdf
How long should the US taxpayer continue to subsidize those 6 week vacations for the French (that American liberals so often tout)? Should we move towards letting them pay for their own security?
haha I voted 'other' on my own poll. After considering the options, I think what the US should do is ask for putting teeth in the 2% agreement. If a nation does not get to the agreed military spending of 2% of GDP, NATO should have the ability to impose a fine in the amount of the shortfall.
If a nation refuses to pay the fine, or is continually short, there should be a process to expel them. I also believe that we should gradually reduce our spending below the 3.5% level, which is way more than anyone else in NATO (or the world) does.
Get out of NATO. Avoid the "entangling alliances" our Founding Fathers warned us about.
This must go hand in hand with us no longer sticking our noses in other countries' affairs. If we're not going to have allies, we should endeavor not to have enemies either. There would not be anywhere near the ill will we currently see toward the US if we had a much less aggressive foreign policy.
NATO is what kept the Russia allied countries from rolling over us all 1 by 1. We should reduce our military spending as a % of our GDP to meet the median or average of those in NATO-whichever is higher.
We should not be spending our treasure to benefit them. We should ALL be spending our treasure to benefit us.
I should say I consider the option to accept Pres. Macron's (and others) commitment to get to 2.0% by 2024 to be the real sucker's bet here. First, why should it take six years? If anything it should apply retroactively--they should spend enough extra to make up (say) the last six years of their shortfalls.
Second, what do we do when we get to 2024 and the French are still way under 2%? Bang our fists and shout?!
This is an insult from Macron and the others who are making this proposal.
NATO is what kept the Russia allied countries from rolling over us all 1 by 1. We should reduce our military spending as a % of our GDP to meet the median or average of those in NATO-whichever is higher.
We should not be spending our treasure to benefit them. We should ALL be spending our treasure to benefit us.
It was not so much NATO as the US. To review the numbers in post #1, in 1980 they had 4.8 million troops, 180 divisions, 50,000 tanks, and 20,000 artillery pieces. They were churning out 1000 fighter jets per year. In Eastern Europe alone they had 3,500 bombers and fighter aircraft. The Pentagon estimated that their military production capacity had expanded by a third during the '70s.
The Euros with their anemic militaries would have been at the Russian's mercy had the Russians decided to strike.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
