Those expecting President Trump to make a stir at the NATO summit with demands for more military spending did not disappoint, as he not only demanded all member nations increase spending to 2% of their GDP immediately, but then pushed for them to ratchet up to 4%.
This stunned many, as the 2% demand is often repeated and met by a handful of NATO countries in the first place. No NATO nation is spending 4% of their GDP on their military, meaning this is a demand for precipitous spending increases alliance-wide.
Needless to say, the 4% is going to be a non-starter for most. Nations like Germany balked at increases to 2%, having no enemies on their borders and large economies. Expecting Germany to more than triple their military spending chasing this new level is even more unrealistic.
The 4% demand is so sudden that it raises questions about whether Trump’s comments are a sincere proposal of policy, or just part of an attempt to bargain the NATO nations up, in hopes that 2% will seem a lot less unreasonable by comparison.
The higher number is in keeping with President Trump’s desire to see NATO nations pay “their fair share” to the alliance, but aims so high it would counsel a big military spending increase for everybody, meaning it is almost certain to be universally opposed.
Statistica’s Military Spending by GDP places the U.S. at 3.1% as of 2017, just behind Russia’s 4.1%. No. 1 was Saudi Arabia at a whopping 10%.
https://ww w.statista.com/statistics/266892/military-expenditure-as-percentage-of-gdp-in-highest-spending-countries/
I guess if Germany, er, NATO and Russia were unreasonably fomenting hot war with one-another, 4% would be reasonable in an unreasonable kind of way.
Nominal GDP, in terms of exchange rate to the dollar means in my view little here when this industry often involves so much internal spending or a lot of national industry being involved, especially with China and Russia. Certainly deals made are not related to dollar but part of larger non-dollar exchanges. Perhaps PPP (purchasing power parity) is more realistic? Other interesting list is the one listing per capita, the real cost per citizen for their “defense”. And yet a different order emerges with tiny countries leading the way.
GDP is convenient as it is calculated in U.S. dollars, which should cover generally PPP and per capita considerations.
A basket of military goods as would be needed in some kind of PPP calculation could be awkward. For example, the U.S. purchases Russian rocket engines. The Americans tried to make Russian rocket engines in the U.S. under license, but found the industrial process so uniquely Russian there weren’t sufficient U.S. analogues to make Russian engines in the U.S. nearly as cheaply, if at all.
The huge wealth gap between West Russia and the underdeveloped East and among West Russians themselves would complicate a per capita expense. Although the U.S. has its own wealth gap, its still different in nature than Russia’s.
Any general number calculation is going to be inefficient, though
economic experts in the Pentagon probably have their own formula drawn
from the methods you mention.
But how much of Saudi Arabia’s spending involves US taxpayer dollars???
That’s a good question.
Unlike Israel, the Saudis appear to mostly pay their own way with oil revenues – cold hard cash – plus the ever-vital role they play in U.S. petrodollar recycling. So, very little U.S. taxpayer money outside direct military assistance like refueling their U.S.-made jet fighters in the Yemen war, and the U.S. probably charges for that as well.
https://fas. org/asmp/profiles/saudi_arabia.htm
Apart from a little help committing war crimes in Yemen (and Osama bin Laden…), Saudi Arabia does not and has not cost very much and the Saudis are possibly materially more critical to U.S. hegemony than any of its present allies including the freeloaders in Europe. The relationship has been a plus overall.
Since a faction of the U.S. Deep State allied with the Globaliists wanted a global proxy Jihadi army, trouble in Yemen, and 9/11, its tough to blame the Saudis alone for America’s problems with Saudi Arabia and Islamic extremism.
Other than the obvious need to pander to the crony capitalists that control our government via the Deep State, is there some reason we ALL can’t cut back to 0.5% of GDP??? And along with that, have the US actually spend the money on DEFENSE for a change, rather than invading and occupying supposedly sovereign nations (that includes all 150+ in which we have bases/troops/drones/missiles, etc.).
Trump demands this rise of military spending of NATO countries to 4% of GDP because he knows or has been told that the total amount involved is roughly 600 billion dollars (provided that the economies of the countries involved do not collapse). He also knows that the overwhelming percentage of those 600 billion dollars will have to be spent on military equipment and not on hiring more soldiers. Mostly planes, missile defense systems, and electronics. Where are the NATO countries going to buy? Russia? China? France? Great Britain? Forget it. Trump speculates: USA. Ergo his 4% demand has absolutely nothing to do with NATO’s defense but is exclusively tailored for our defense industry. Even a compromise agreement of 2% soon will be a boon for our MIC.
His US base will fall for his grandiose malarkey but the governments of the other NATO countries will not.
That is ALL that foreign “aid” is as well. The gullible think of big bags of rice or things to meet the needs of the poor and starving, while in truth it is just a check made out to Lockheed or similar that simply requires the endorsement of the dictator du jour of the recipient nation.
Moloch, otherwise known as the Military-Industrial Complex, is hungry always hungry and must be fed with more bombs more planes more nukes more useless overseas interventions more missiles and much more nuclear oblivion on the horizon