# Paying for NATO **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 14, 2016, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paying-for-nato/771966 "2016-11-14T16:01:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paying-for-nato/771966/41 "2016-11-21T20:22:47Z")
> [@Grim\_Render](#): > > How much money is actually necessary to run a NATO that keeps a reasonable military power? Should probably know that before we can decide who pays a fair share of it. After all, it is possible there is some military overspending out there. It depends on the mission, obviously. If the idea of NATO is simply to protect Western Europe from attack (or deter attack on Western Europe) then you need certain budget levels. Those were deemed to be, by treaty, 2% of GDP as a minimum in the days of the Soviet Union, and if that’s all NATO is supposed to do and if the Europeans are good with that then what they are paying is probably enough. Some countries in NATO are at that level, some exceed it…and many are well below that. Some of those below that are now finding that their military capabilities are far below the levels to make them viable (without the US to fill in the gaps of course). If NATO wants to remain a viable military alliance able to defend itself and project power beyond Western Europe (to, oh, say some of the newer NATO members in Eastern Europe) then the current levels aren’t adequate…not unless the assumption is that the US will just carry most of the water, as we’ve been doing. If the mission is to project power to include protecting access to strategic resources or protect strategic trade or other assets outside of Europe but that impact Europe then NATO, without the US has very little capability to do this. Would having every NATO member up to the 2% agreed upon lessen the burden on the US? Not really. But that’s not really the point. Europe can and should step up to increase their capabilities in tune with the sorts of things NATO seems to have requirements for, which isn’t just a static defence and deterrence for aggressors against Western Europe. Europeans are always on about getting out of the US’s shadow…well, they should be able to have capabilities to project power outside of Western Europe without the prop of the US. > [@](#): > > Also, if the goal is a reasonable military power rather than selling more stuff to keep someones military-industrial complex going, how much of that could be achieved more easily by better coordination and integration in Europe? I assume all of these comments in this thread about propping up the US military and industrial complex are mainly about the US forcing (or some such) all these other countries to buy F-35s instead of the obviously (to those making the comments) superior European aircraft, and that this is some sort of hidden tax the US requires Europe to pay…or something. ---
**Author:** ![Gukumatz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/74df32/32.png) [@Gukumatz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gukumatz)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paying-for-nato/771966/42 "2016-11-21T23:36:18Z")
> [@XT](#): > > I assume all of these comments in this thread about propping up the US military and industrial complex are mainly about the US forcing (or some such) all these other countries to buy F-35s instead of the obviously (to those making the comments) superior European aircraft, and that this is some sort of hidden tax the US requires Europe to pay…or something. Less “superior” and more “still top shelf but way more affordable”, with regards to the Gripen (Griffin). But, yes. Only 2 NATO countries are on the Gripen purchase list. (Croatia and Poland.) The F35 … Well, [John McCain](http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/26/politics/f-35-delay-air-force/) put it rather succinctly. The “sunk costs” fallacy is a hard one for politicians to get around, but European politicians’ fully bipartisan reluctance to pull out of the F35 farce has become striking. ---
**Author:** ![Bruce\_Wayne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bruce\_Wayne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bruce_Wayne)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2016, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paying-for-nato/771966/43 "2016-11-22T01:48:35Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > There is no way to know, but Japan has the materials and know-how to make them. They are too pragmatic not to have them, IMO. I think your belief is reasonable. [Japan has the material and the know how to make a bomb within the range of six month to two years](https://www.google.com/amp/www.nbcnews.com/storyline/fukushima-anniversary/amp/japan-has-nuclear-bomb-basement-china-isnt-happy-n48976?client=safari). ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2016, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paying-for-nato/771966/44 "2016-11-22T14:38:05Z")
Having material and know-how to make nuclear weapons is a trait shared by many countries, such as Canada or Germany. That does not mean they are presently in possession of them. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2016, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paying-for-nato/771966/45 "2016-11-22T15:09:24Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Having material and know-how to make nuclear weapons is a trait shared by many countries, such as Canada or Germany. That does not mean they are presently in possession of them. You have said this before and it’s not even close to being true. Germany and Canada are both advanced countries and they would probably succeed in making nukes if they decide. However, neither currently has material or fascilities to do so. Canada had only a pilot Plutonium reprocessing plant and no current uranium enrichment facilities. Nuclear facilities and institutions in Germany (and Italy) are controlled by EU or pan euro institutions, indeed one of the reasons for the formation of Euratom in the 50’s was to ensure that those two countries would not use the USSR as an excuse to go nuclear. Plus there are several nuclear component which niether country manufactures, since they have no need to, and which they cannot purchase openly. So looking at several years work at least. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2016, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paying-for-nato/771966/46 "2016-11-22T16:40:04Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Plus there are several nuclear component which niether country manufactures, since they have no need to, and which they cannot purchase openly. > > So looking at several years work at least. I’m not saying they could roll them out next week. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paying-for-nato/771966.md?page=2)