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.
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 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.
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.