Should the U.K. defend other NATO countries that maintain low military defense budgets relative to their GDP?
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 defie…
Read moreNarrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Political party:
Political theme:
Political theme:
Borough:
@9PP7D3Z 9mos9MO
No - we should defend current NATO countries however NATO must enforce membership pledges or remove those countries who do not comply from the alliance
@AndrewS-Bucks 10mos10MO
Yes, But we should be able to send a bill to that country for the support they have needed because they didn't meet their obligations
@9P66XW210mos10MO
Yes but if they are to remain a member they should have deadlines by which they need to be spending accordingly
@9M47XPZ11mos11MO
We should stand by our allies, however if it comes to an us or them situation the government should look after the UK first and work to help our ally once the UK's security has been confirmed
@9JHW84R1yr1Y
Yes, but more restrictions on access of advanced weaponry systems to those who spends less than 2% of their GDP on military defense
@9J3L3H2Conservative 1yr1Y
Yes, but there should be more active encouragement of countries to participate 2% of their GDP, and countries that are allies but not NATO members
@9FNVMTP2yrs2Y
If I’m nato we support no matter the situation
@92C3V743yrs3Y
Yes, but hold them to account and encourage them to increase defence spending.
@9PP8YJ49mos9MO
Yes we should because that is what NATO is about and we need to keep the balance of power. However, NATO countries need to pull their weight and if they can't afford it, then they need to come to a resolution so they can pay what they can.
@93MLTG83yrs3Y
all depends if they started the attack or they where in the wrong
@937H5WF3yrs3Y
@nikothefox4yrs4Y
Only for countries under threat of Russian imperialism, such as those in Eastern Europe
@JOOLSA4yrs4Y
Yes we should defend them, but they should be paying the agreed 2%, it should be enforced.
No. We will decide who is a deserving ally nationally.
@8PBRY894yrs4Y
Yes, provided that country isn't starting the violence.
Don’t know enough about it.
@9BSPG8K2yrs2Y
Yes, but their should be stricter rules to remain a part of NATO so everyone is the same
@977WM4C2yrs2Y
We should defend all NATO countries regardless of defense budgets relative to GDP.
@96N6CX5Conservative2yrs2Y
Yes, but encourage them to spend what is right to defend themselves
@96HY77K2yrs2Y
Yes, as long as that country is not the aggressor
@96B4JMT2yrs2Y
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.
@93VGXT33yrs3Y
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
@92NNDCS3yrs3Y
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.
@8XN9JRTConservative3yrs3Y
Yes but we should encourage all NATO members to meet the 2% commitment.
The people would vote on this.
@964JPJR2yrs2Y
Yes, but having an agreement of a minimum % spend of GDP on defence does sound sensible
@964GYTM2yrs2Y
We should not defend members who fail to meet the obligations set out in the treaty.
@92C326S3yrs3Y
Yes, but those countries should be pressurised to step up and pay up fairly at at least 2% of their GDP.
@8Y72N7Y3yrs3Y
Yes we should protect ANYONE that TRULY needs protecting.
I'd rather have those countries be able to defend themselves and use other NATO members as a last resort.
@B2WJQLL2mos2MO
No. We need to increase our budget by 25% per year until we get more peaceful relations with our foes. Once were more peaceful with the world, withdraw from Nato and focus on our own military development and interests. At present, refuse to defend anyone thats paying under 3%, and increase our spend to 3% in short term.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
