I think that's pretty much by design, for a lot of reasons ... and most of them not good.CID1990 wrote:They don't. Germany and other countries put their eggs in the operational basket and little else. They have zero support and logistics, and no transport. They (and the rest of NATO) depend entirely on us for moving their crap around and putting gas in it.Aho Old Guy wrote:Low-brow move by the Manhattan Hillbilly.
I believe the NATO 2% has to be put in context. They likely spend a similar percentage as the US for readiness, training and operations. America spends more deploying our 'special interests' (nod-nod, wink-wink), and that's what NATO is pretty much all about. It begins with a B and ends with a 61. We're spending a lot on that.
And, a lot on 'overseas contingency operations,' R&D and procurement <---- BINGO!
We want them to spend more 'procure-ing' our stuff. We make some good stuff.
And if our goal is money for Northrop Grumman, then we should be pulling out if NATO entirely. Defense stocks would double the next day.
NATO is the ultimate stand-your-ground bunch. Maintain local order, take a deep breath, and watch this. It's what Uncle Sam was designed to do: Project Power. And the opposition will step back.
Lord knows what happens next. US stand-off versus ? . Escalation to what ? . We got that covered, too, and arguing over the need to spend $20 billion making those tactical dial-a-nukes even 'better.'
Pity the poor defense industrial complex? Oh. Noes. They're on a record wave of R&D and procurement contracts. That gravy train will chug-on, for better or even-better, for some time.