[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by pylon

Yet NATO spending should be proportionate to the amount of world conflicts a particular nation creates via antagonizing nations over 'human rights issues' (We're totally not after control of your natural resources, totally not at all.... seriously, we're not!) in my personal opinion.

And using that math, the US should be responsible for I dunno, 3,476% of the NATO budget.

Disclaimer: I used the Casio calculator on my desk to get that figure, so it may have a margin of error of approximately +/- 0.032%.

That's a pretty jaded way of looking at things, but in many regards this is accurate. In a world where nuclear deterrent is the greatest factor in preventing aggression against European states, the United States being the saving grace for the continent is a very antiquated way of looking at things. Germany, France and Great Britain have stock piles large enough to keep the bear at bay. The other factor is not being global dicks and antagonizing other nations into attacking you. The Scandinavian countries, with the exception of Denmark, go it alone on defense and Russia hasn't sent tanks rolling across the borders or been subject to a spate of non homegrown terrorism.

Originally Posted by peter12

That is neither the point of the alliance or national defense.

What exactly is your point here? Are you suggesting that the United States needs bases in 30+ countries to protect the homeland? No, those bases are not there for protection of the homeland but are there to project power for economic and diplomatic purposes. This is all part of the cost of wanting to be the World Police, a role Americans relish no matter how badly they try and deny the role.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You know the simplest thing for Trump to do and probably would be a popular move would be to go completely isolationist, leave NATO completely, shut down their world wide bases and shift their defense spending to their Nuclear Armaments.

The world would be a much better place.

Basically leave Nato to its own devices, and define military alliances based on a one on one basis set on their own defined criteria.

Bilateralism is one approach to solving problems like this. Would work in a lot of regards, except that other nations would likely still engage in multilateralism to solve their problems. The biggest problem is that the United States continues to stick their nose where it doesn't belong, causing problems for member nations. How about the US just start behaving themselves and allow other nations to govern as they see fit, and stop trying to export their bastardized version of democracy?

At the same time in North America they could inform Canada that they need to start spending more or America would take over the aerodefense of North America and Canada wouldn't have a seat at the table.

And Canada can turn off the electricity to the northeastern states, the flow of oil and natural gas to the US in general, and make the trading relationship that much more frosty. The US has it pretty good in its relationship with Canada and should learn to mind their manners. Don't piss off your neighbors when you like throw a lot of wild parties and have a grow operation in your garage. When you have a relationship that works, why #### with it?