Should the U.S. 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. At the NATO Summit of 2014, each member agreed on a goal of spending 2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defense by 2024. Member nations further agreed to devote at least 20% of defense spending on major new equipment and associated Research and Development. As of 2020,…
Read more55% Yes |
45% No |
44% Yes |
36% No |
11% Yes, and refusing to defend other NATO countries sets a dangerous precedent for the balance of global power |
6% No, we should not defend any NATO country that spends less than 2% of their GDP on military defense |
3% No, and we should withdraw from NATO |
See how support for each position on “NATO” has changed over time for 244k America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
See how importance of “NATO” has changed over time for 244k America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from America users whose views extended beyond the provided choices.
@8JCJLWV4yrs4Y
Yes, but should strongly encourage such nations to increase their support for NATO
@5495QKW4yrs4Y
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.
@8XHGB7H2yrs2Y
Yes but demand they pay their fair share
@547W2M24yrs4Y
"Defending" each other is how wars are started. Hell no.
@548HSP84yrs4Y
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?
@5485KZ24yrs4Y
Yes, upon the condition that a lien (of sorts...) is placed on that country, resulting in a gained equitable interest to the People of the U.S. Maybe even going to so far as being a fund of mutual benefit, to the US and the country being protected. This could be practical if that country is better off spending their own budget on something which would bring more benefit to that country, thereby increasing a potential return to the US. Especially since the US has so much invested in its military already.
Stay up-to-date on the most recent “NATO” news articles, updated frequently.
Explore other topics that are important to America voters.