Full text of #Trump letter disturbing #NATO allies. This letter sent to #Norway. Similar language in letters Trump sent to leaders of #Canada #Germany #Belgium, #Italy, #Spain, #Portugal, #Luxembourg, & the #Netherlands. https://t.co/bE0MMkCqll pic.twitter.com/6C32ZerlRL— NATOSource (@NATOSource) July 3, 2018
WNU Editor: NATO countries are quick to respond that they meeting their requirements .... NATO allies defend military spending amid Trump criticism (Washington Post/AP). But when one reads what they are saying .... it is the same thing that they have been saying for years. They are all promising to reach their targets .... but all of their targets are way in the future. In the case of Canada, the defense ministers is promising a 70% increase in ten years .... but most of these increases will kick in at the tail-end of ten years (that is if future governments respect these targets) .... and not now.
Previous Post: President Trump Demands More Defense Spending From NATO Allies (Updated) (July 2, 2018)
18 comments:
There's a solution to this.
Withdraw from NATO. Withdraw from the the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Build a nuclear deterrent.
Absolutely Anon except that the question is, is there an effective nuclear deterrent? You can put lots of money into building such a deterrent but given the correct motivation no deterrent will stop a beaten nation from launching all the nukes they have when their backs are against the wall. Think of Russia during the battle of Stalingrad. Do you think they wouldn't have launched nukes if they had had them even with the risk of fallout? Heck the US has been fighting a limited nuclear war in the mid east for quite a while now. Who is going to deter them from that little issue.
The answer to the NATO commitment issue is obvious, give a new commitment equal to today's spending power. If the US wants to use NATO to push the Russians let them foot the bill.
"If the US wants to use NATO to push the Russians let them foot the bill." I think the EU along with some idiot US politicians who suck up to the EU are the ones who want to push Russia and make the US pay for it. Of course it costs the Euros nothing. They aren't going to bear the brunt of an American reprisal. The US and its people are the ones who would bear the brunt of such a reprisal.
The problem with the Euros is they want the benefits without the costs. Once the "summit" between Putin and Trump happens, expect the big stuff to be worked out solving US/Russian problems. At this point, if the Euros still want to push Russia, they can then foot the bill.
With that said Russia is heavily involved in Cuba, Venezuela, and other areas that the US could reasonably view as threatening to it and its interests. During any negotiations between the US and Russia I would expect US officials to address this. I did notice the NATO meetings are coming up before the Trump/Putin meeting. I would expect Trump and his team to gage how the Euros act with regards to NATO before determining exactly what approaches to take in regards to the negotiations with Russia. I suspect the Russians are looking at this as well. With the US/Trump goal of a negotiated settlement how much support America has among its NATO allies will have a large role in determining how good a settlement we can expect to get. As for the Euros and certain hysterical anti-Russian elements in the US, they may have other agendas.
I mean they aren't going to bear the brunt of a Russian reprisal. This would be borne by the US and its people.
Anon,
"Build a nuclear deterrent." The US had actually neglected this aspect for many years. Furthermore given our massive national debt, infrastructure in massive need of upgrades, and worn down military it seems questionable at best that we have the conventional capabilities to go up against a major power such as Russia or China and in the coming years it is likely to be even more problematic than it is today.
POTUS said the first thing he did upon being elected was to fix this. I hope he did. At a minimum, I think he is addressing this. The greatest threats to America in order of most likely to occur are as follows: 1.)an Islamic terrorist attack involving the use of a variety of suitcase nuclear weapons and other dirty bombs detonated simultaneously across multiple Metropolitan areas killing millions if not tens of millions of Americans. 2.)An all out nuclear attack by Russia probably utilizing their vast cyber warfare capabilities knocking out our ability to respond before launching the attack. 3.)An invasion of the US mainland by Russia, China, and their allies.
While scenario 1 is the most likely, scenario 2 is the most dangerous. As such, the lion share of our attention should be devoted to preventing scenario 2 and ensuring we are able to have a robust response should Russia launch a nuclear attack against us. The other threats will need to be attended to as well. Having identified the threats how does NATO fit into this? I really don't see how NATO helps us here. As such, on its face, withdrawal from NATO actually seems like a reasonable approach. Given that the Euros don't respect us and appear to hold us in utter contempt, this is beginning to look like a no brainer so to speak.
I don't kill babies nor praise those who do. But I can respond intelligently to a comment unlike you who can't. And hey I did cut her rent by $50. At least you can give me credit for that.
I haven't a clue why you might think I support the people who did 9/11 especially when I firmly believe that factions of the US government facilitated the attack as I am sure you do too.
$50 is 50 bucks. You should be so lucky. She was so happy the other day she paid for dinner. It made her feel good and for myself, I let her enjoy the moment.
By the way your thoughts on depleted Uranium being used for weapons, as in it is not dangerous, is misconstrued. Try reading this document beyond page one, like to the end, and note the use of the word contamination. The US has been using nuclear weapons in the Mid East for a long time now with serious side effects on innocent citizens and on its own military. But they when has the US ever cared about the safety of its own military or people for that matter.
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1508/ML15083A448.pdf
As for killing children. I can see why Obama did not approval that Yemen raid and left it for Trump. Obama finally gave way to his humanity, a bit too late of course but still, and declined to order the death of that 7 year of girl, the primary target of the attack.
Post a Comment