Should our country defend other NATO countries that maintain low military defense budgets relative to their GDP?

We should defend them, but they do need to reach some requirement

Yes generally unless it affects us & put pressure on them to increase their military spending

Don’t agree with warfare

If they helped us

yes but only if said country can defend themselves without the interference of other nations

Only if UK national security is at risk

Work to get countries not spending what was agreed to toe the line

Yes, but encourage them to spend what is right to defend themselves

They must reach their spending commitment within 3 years

Yes, as long as that country is not the aggressor

Yes, but spending 2% of GDP on defence should be a legal requirement of NATO membership, and failure to do so should result in legal enforcement against the country in question or temporary suggestion of some or all of their membership benefits.

Yes, but having an agreement of a minimum % spend of GDP on defence does sound sensible

We should not defend members who fail to meet the obligations set out in the treaty.

Yes but only financially viable

Yes, as When we are under attack we get support and can maintain a friendly relationship

Yes, but only if defending them serves the interest of the UK

depends on there risk and current state

Countries with extremely low spending should not be allowed membership

Negotiate with the countries to raise their spending , and if they don’t we wouldn’t be able to afford to secure them

Yes, but each member country of NATO should commit a specific percentage of GDP to defence

it depends on why the other country isn't spending as much on defence

Yes, defend other NATO countries at all times however every NATO country must be committed to military spending consistently at same percentage of GDP as all other members

Give support to weaker nations, but also work to improve diplomatic relations with nations with strained relations with the UK.

Yes, but put pressure on them to increase to at least 2%

we should give as much help as they invest into nato

I'd rather have those countries be able to defend themselves and use other NATO members as a last resort.

We should send our support and resources before we send fighters

Don’t nnow

Yes, as long as we are members we should abide by the membership rules. However, we should suggest NATO introducing an equal % of membership contribution.

Yes, but counties should be obligated to meet the minimum spending

No, and we need to work towards abolishing NATO.

Article 5 states we will defend all NATO territory so we have an obligation to.

If they're in the club no matter what they pay their in the club

Yes, but hold them to account and encourage them to increase defence spending.

Yes, but those countries should be pressurised to step up and pay up fairly at at least 2% of their GDP.

Countries not spending 2% should be moved out of NATO

...this is more complex than the responses allow.

NATO should set its own spending legislation

No, a requirement of nato should be that the country should have adequate spending

Yes, if aid is requested by those countries

Yes, if aid is requested

Only in outstanding circumstances

it depends how risky there siutation is

it depends on the size of the military

Governments are the reason why wars happen. Without corrupt criminals in politics (from the UK and the US, all the way to PRC) then wars wouldn't happen and military spending wouldn't be needed.

NATO needs to stop it’s expansion.

Yes we should protect ANYONE that TRULY needs protecting.

Defend but encourage countries to increase their military spending

Defend others, but reduce overall spending on the military.