European Railroad Discussion > NATO issues

NATO has a plethora of issues, but this is a new one to me.
General Hodges states there is a lack of rail capacity to quickly move troops and equipment in the region. Apparently centered on lack of suitable rail equipment.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-germany-usa-idUSKBN1A617U

These countries need to pay their agreed upon share. I believe the U.S., U.K. and three other small countries are the only ones paying the agreed 2% GDP amount. But when they are threatened by another nation they expect us to bail them out.

Seems that the real threat to Europe doesn't come from an outside enemy but from the threat a number of the nations allowed in willingly. There isn't a external threat to Europe, anyone who thinks Russia in any way wants the bunch of worthless, unreliable moochers, bootlickers and anti semites like the Baltics and Poland is nuts.

andersonb109 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These countries need to pay their agreed upon
> share. I believe the U.S., U.K. and three other
> small countries are the only ones paying the
> agreed 2% GDP amount. But when they are threatened
> by another nation they expect us to bail them out.

You are way off the mark.

First, NATO funding comes in two forms: direct funding and indirect funding. The direct funding formula is based on gross national income, with the U.S. covering 22% (less than $500 mil./year) of the NATO operating budget and Germany covering around 14%.

The 2% figure refers to indirect funding, which is actually not funding of NATO per se but rather refers to the amount each member country spends on its own defense budget. So it cannot be referred to as a "share" of NATO funding. Currently, only five members meet or exceed that figure: the U.S., the U.K., Greece, Estonia, and Poland.

However, the 2% figure is a guideline to which the members of NATO have committed themselves to reach by the year 2024. As you may note, 2024 is still 7 years away.

Regardless, the 2% figure is for a number of reasons rather arbitrary. Among other things, it depends not only on how much is spent on defense but also on how large the country's GDP is. One of the reasons Greece has met the figure is because its economy crashed and with it its GDP as well. Suddenly what Greece were already spending on its defense was a larger proportion of its economy.

That the president continues to harp on this 2% figure is nothing more than a baseless talking point and hot air. It, like much of what he says, should not be taken at face value.

pennengineer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> andersonb109 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > These countries need to pay their agreed upon
> > share. I believe the U.S., U.K. and three other
> > small countries are the only ones paying the
> > agreed 2% GDP amount. But when they are
> threatened
> > by another nation they expect us to bail them
> out.
>
> You are way off the mark.
>
> First, NATO funding comes in two forms: direct
> funding and indirect funding. The direct funding
> formula is based on gross national income, with
> the U.S. covering 22% (less than $500 mil./year)
> of the NATO operating budget and Germany covering
> around 14%.
>
> The 2% figure refers to indirect funding, which is
> actually not funding of NATO per se but rather
> refers to the amount each member country spends on
> its own defense budget. So it cannot be referred
> to as a "share" of NATO funding. Currently, only
> five members meet or exceed that figure: the U.S.,
> the U.K., Greece, Estonia, and Poland.
>
> However, the 2% figure is a guideline to which the
> members of NATO have committed themselves to reach
> by the year 2024. As you may note, 2024 is still
> 7 years away.
>
> Regardless, the 2% figure is for a number of
> reasons rather arbitrary. Among other things, it
> depends not only on how much is spent on defense
> but also on how large the country's GDP is. One of
> the reasons Greece has met the figure is because
> its economy crashed and with it its GDP as well.
> Suddenly what Greece were already spending on its
> defense was a larger proportion of its economy.
>
> That the president continues to harp on this 2%
> figure is nothing more than a baseless talking
> point and hot air. It, like much of what he says,
> should not be taken at face value.

You were expecting President Pinocchio to give the facts?

GettingShort Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seems that the real threat to Europe doesn't come
> from an outside enemy but from the threat a number
> of the nations allowed in willingly. There isn't a
> external threat to Europe, anyone who thinks
> Russia in any way wants the bunch of worthless,
> unreliable moochers, bootlickers and anti semites
> like the Baltics and Poland is nuts.

Ever thought of a career in diplomacy?

pennengineer Wrote
>
> You are way off the mark.
>
> First, NATO funding comes in two forms: direct
> funding and indirect funding. The direct funding
> formula is based on gross national income, with
> the U.S. covering 22% (less than $500 mil./year)
> of the NATO operating budget and Germany covering
> around 14%.

Correct. The total NATO operating budget that pays for the bureaucracy in Brussels is less than 1.4 billion, or a tiny fraction of the second, most important part, the actual armed forces. Germany does pay 14% of the operating budget for Brussels.
>
> The 2% figure refers to indirect funding, which is
> actually not funding of NATO per se but rather
> refers to the amount each member country spends on
> its own defense budget. So it cannot be referred
> to as a "share" of NATO funding. Currently, only
> five members meet or exceed that figure: the U.S.,
> the U.K., Greece, Estonia, and Poland.

The 2% figure is in fact what should pay for the actual armed forces that make up NATO. The bureaucracy presumably does not do the actual fighting should there be any, although it is essential.
>
> However, the 2% figure is a guideline to which the
> members of NATO have committed themselves to reach
> by the year 2024. As you may note, 2024 is still
> 7 years away.

The commitment to spend 2% stems from a 2006 agreement. Of course, only the US, UK , and Greece have consistently met that commitment.
As you may note, 2006 was 11 years ago. The made same same commitment in 2014 with the 2024 proviso added.
Merkel, says they will try, her foreign minister says never going to happen, Macron just cut the French Army by a billion dollars resulting in the Army's chief resigning in protest. We are off to a great start.

>
> Regardless, the 2% figure is for a number of
> reasons rather arbitrary. Among other things, it
> depends not only on how much is spent on defense
> but also on how large the country's GDP is. One of
> the reasons Greece has met the figure is because
> its economy crashed and with it its GDP as well.
> Suddenly what Greece were already spending on its
> defense was a larger proportion of its economy.

As far back as 2001 Greek defense spending was higher in GDP terms than US. Of course, it is based on their mutual animosity with the Turks, ironically another NATO member.
Don't like the arbitrary nature of the 2 %? Why did everyone agree to that? Twice.
If you still don't like it, the US defense spending is about $1800 per capita, UK about $1,000' Germany about $500. Slice and dice, same answer.
>
> That the president continues to harp on this 2%
> figure is nothing more than a baseless talking
> point and hot air. It, like much of what he says,
> should not be taken at face value.
Strangely enough this is the one point we can mostly agree on. On the other hand, even a blind squirrel..........

Getting back to the original post, there is not enough rail equipment to move troops around Europe. Assume nobody is dissing the Generals statement, but I could be wrong. He is not asking for a new panzer division, a new air wing, or even to fix the existing air wing which is mostly grounded. Just some rail cars.