The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an intergovernmental military alliance formed by 28 countries in 1949 after the Second World War. To join NATO each member country pledged to spend at least 2% of their GDP on military spending and defense and defend each other against threats from any non-member country. In a July 2016 interview with the New York Times Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump suggested that the United States would not defend NATO member countries who had failed to increase their military budgets to above 2% of Gross Domestic Product. The suggestion defies a pact made by NATO members when it was formed in WWII that they would defend each other against any attack by a non-member nation. France, Turkey, Germany, Canada, and Italy are countries that are currently spending less than 2% of their GDP on military defense.
No, but add a clause that ensures a "tax" or reparation is made to the US from those countries that need defending (and under 2%) should they need the US military for defense or aid.
"Defending" each other is how wars are started. Hell no.
We should not be expected to fund countries who prosper but do not fund their own defense -- why should we bear the cost when they can afford to do so?
No but we should help them use their smaller budget more efficiently and honourably.
We should withdraw from NATO and determine our cooperation with European nations bilaterally.
Yes, but NATO should require all countries to spend a certain amount of their GDP on the military.
No, we should remain neutral but help with aid for those with low military defence budgets
Yes, we have made an agreement to do so, but we should begin to disentangle those obligations while working to retain positive relations with them all.
All countries in NATO SOULD AN EQUAL amount of GDP
Yes, but only if they give us compensation for protection.
We can step in to help with the understanding they are to build a strong military.
I don't understand this question.
Yes, however this should be done as a member of NATO along with the other members of NATO doing the same
It should depend on the threat.
Yes, depending on the circumstances
Yes because it is strategically relevant to the deployment ability of our troops to potential combat locations.
we should help if they need help but ask them to pay more
Depends on the ties and the casus belli
I do not enough to form an opinion
Yes, but minimally and only in serious situations
If help is requested.
Yes, but subject them to tariffs and other repercussions
Yes, but all countries in NATO should live up to the agreements they signed on to for that protection.
NATO troops in general, not just the US, and these countries should build up their military budget
Yes, so long as we remain within NATO with its current terms. We have in the past done so in spite of this, and to stop doing so now seems both petty and aggressive when there is a diplomatic solution--renegotiation or walking away if those negotiations are not in line with the objective of ensuring the world is not subject to a government or entity like the Nazis of WWII.
Yes but build In an interest for catch up.
Yes, but enforce members to spend 2% of GDP.
Yes, we should defend any country we promised to defend in good faith. Constituent NATO countries fulfilling their military spending agreement should collectively require non-complicit members to meet the required budget. Consultative support should be offered to help make this happen in a reasonable period (e.g., 2 to 3 years). Nations failing to meet the deadline should be required to pay remaining nations including the US a direct fee for defensive service.
Yes, only if every country will contribute the agreed upon 2% of their GDP.
Yes, as long as those countries do not antagonize or declare war on larger countries expecting aid from the rest of NATO.
Yes, but some defenses should be removed
If its needed and countries pay for the help in times of need.
Depends on the situation that lead to the country being attacked
Yes, if those countries have a plan in place to meet a minimum spending percentage requirement
It’s important to protect people in need of aid.
Yes, and they should have a payment agreement based on the amount of support given.
Yes defend... but bill NATO due to their failure to hold to their end of the agreement.
US should be an ally and not a primary participant.
No, we should require them to pay at least 2% of their GDP on military defense
Yes, but continue to pressure those countries to carry their load and do their fair share
There should be a standard to meet the NATO requirements and all countries involved should have the same obligations to assist.
No, unless it has to do with relation with us we don't have to worry about others.
only if they are under attack
Yes, but those countries need to increase their military spending.
Yes, however the push to force other countries to pay their obligations is important
Yes, but the terms of NATO should be revised and potentially revised
All war time judgements should be made with all the available and situational facts at hand.
Yes, but set minimum capabilities and standards all nations must abide by.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
