The only way the US could save $860B per year is by dismantling it's entire military industrial complex. No army, no navy, no air force, no guns, no vehicles, just a sitting duck waiting for Russia or China to invade, with a decent chance of taking over as they won't face much resistance.
Not really. The above info-graphic shows only our expenditures on NATO. We could easily focus all of our defense spending on safeguarding the US and its outlying territories (Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.) and simply STOP spending on NATO, an organization that has lost its mission and its purpose since the Soviet Union collapsed.
That wouldn't reduce the cost, because this is the total federal military spending.
That said, the US could save maybe a few billions by not fucking around allover the world. But that also means fewer countries will buy US military equipment as they no longer have to, which means less jobs in the US, which means less tax income and more people on welfare.
My guess is that it would be net loss. Especially when losing leverage over other countries, while simultaneously becoming more dependent on EU and China.
According to the title of the graphic, that is NOT total federal military spending, it is NATO expenditures. It would appear (taking the graphic at face value) that the US is expending a HUGE part of its military spending on NATO. I think you may be conflating two very different things.
As to "less jobs" the military-industrial complex certainly WILL have to adjust to the new reality, just like everyone else. You seem to be suggesting that the US should continue supporting NATO to keep people employed in the weapons industry, which is ALSO not the mission of NATO.
Nations will continue to buy weapons, and the US will remain as a large exporter of military equipment, but the US military and taxpayers do not have to be the middleman.
That's because OP edited the original after being called out the last 500 times he lied about this, check his history. Every version of this chart is different.
You made the assertion, it's not up to me to prove or disprove it.
However, having said that, I did look at the four (4) iterations that were posted at the link you provided, and all four of them say "NATO" expenditures. As far as I'm concerned it's case closed...unless you can point me directly to a graphic he posted that shows otherwise.
I have not edited anything, this is the USA's NATO spending. The total defense budget of the USA is around $1.4 trillion of which around $600 billion is used to defense of the USA and $860 billion to fund NATO.
It is the total federal military budget for each country, including contractors but excluding local defense, which is most of EU/EEA countries defense.
OP have posted this same lie over 500 times with the goal to divide the west. Doesn't matter how many times he gets called out, like a broken record he keeps coming back with the same old lies.
some people don't have the desire to determine if a meme they see might be half-truth misdirection, so repost it to inflate the confirmation bias bubble they inhabit.
All by the CCP playbook. I said it before and I say it again, this site could use community notes. Unlike preddit it's possible to preview images without opening the post, great feature, but it also means most users miss out on the comments calling out lies.
And mods won't remove posts for containing lies. Not that they could possibly know what's true or false anyway. It's a shame. The platform has become a hub for CCP propaganda, similar to X.
You're going to put community notes on a tweet sent by Elon Musk? He tweeted that the USA spends 2/3rd of European defense, his claim is the same a the image in my post.
the u.s. spent 860 on total defense. the remaining part of the budget to 1.4T is veteran expenses. I suppose wherever you're at, you don't have access to the whole internet.
Thanks for that link for employment opportunities, but you stated their benefits were cut. That's the sauce I was looking for. How US Agency for International Development (USAID) has any ties to US veteran benefits?
US involvement $$-wise in NATO is somewhat, somewhat outdated like those old forts you see when you enter the bays of Manila, or Puerto Rico and other countries. When rocket attacks can bypass a fortress on the coast, that fortress is of little use unless there is a physical presence of the enemy which wont happen as they can parachute in to secure said fort from behind.
NATO countries in Europe could increase their standing army and equipment enough to hold off any Russian advance until the US arrived to bomb the Russians into oblivion if they chose. (Notwithstanding MAD).
The only way the US could save $860B per year is by dismantling it's entire military industrial complex. No army, no navy, no air force, no guns, no vehicles, just a sitting duck waiting for Russia or China to invade, with a decent chance of taking over as they won't face much resistance.
Not really. The above info-graphic shows only our expenditures on NATO. We could easily focus all of our defense spending on safeguarding the US and its outlying territories (Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.) and simply STOP spending on NATO, an organization that has lost its mission and its purpose since the Soviet Union collapsed.
That wouldn't reduce the cost, because this is the total federal military spending.
That said, the US could save maybe a few billions by not fucking around allover the world. But that also means fewer countries will buy US military equipment as they no longer have to, which means less jobs in the US, which means less tax income and more people on welfare.
My guess is that it would be net loss. Especially when losing leverage over other countries, while simultaneously becoming more dependent on EU and China.
According to the title of the graphic, that is NOT total federal military spending, it is NATO expenditures. It would appear (taking the graphic at face value) that the US is expending a HUGE part of its military spending on NATO. I think you may be conflating two very different things.
As to "less jobs" the military-industrial complex certainly WILL have to adjust to the new reality, just like everyone else. You seem to be suggesting that the US should continue supporting NATO to keep people employed in the weapons industry, which is ALSO not the mission of NATO.
Nations will continue to buy weapons, and the US will remain as a large exporter of military equipment, but the US military and taxpayers do not have to be the middleman.
That's because OP edited the original after being called out the last 500 times he lied about this, check his history. Every version of this chart is different.
Hmmm, OK, care to link to those "different versions"? I don't have time to substantiate your claim. Please elucidate.
You don't have time to check his profile history: https://scored.co/u/Chukna?type=post
Don't be ignorant, that's how you become a victim of propaganda.
Also notice how everything is duplicated.
You made the assertion, it's not up to me to prove or disprove it.
However, having said that, I did look at the four (4) iterations that were posted at the link you provided, and all four of them say "NATO" expenditures. As far as I'm concerned it's case closed...unless you can point me directly to a graphic he posted that shows otherwise.
I have not edited anything, this is the USA's NATO spending. The total defense budget of the USA is around $1.4 trillion of which around $600 billion is used to defense of the USA and $860 billion to fund NATO.
perhaps if other countries have to defend themselves instead of us doing it, they will spend the money on military equipment to do so.
USA spends $1.4 trillion to defense of which $860 billion goes to NATO.
this looks like the defense spending of each nato member... nato does not require the u.s. to have 700 bases globally, for example.
It is the total federal military budget for each country, including contractors but excluding local defense, which is most of EU/EEA countries defense.
OP have posted this same lie over 500 times with the goal to divide the west. Doesn't matter how many times he gets called out, like a broken record he keeps coming back with the same old lies.
some people don't have the desire to determine if a meme they see might be half-truth misdirection, so repost it to inflate the confirmation bias bubble they inhabit.
All by the CCP playbook. I said it before and I say it again, this site could use community notes. Unlike preddit it's possible to preview images without opening the post, great feature, but it also means most users miss out on the comments calling out lies.
And mods won't remove posts for containing lies. Not that they could possibly know what's true or false anyway. It's a shame. The platform has become a hub for CCP propaganda, similar to X.
You're going to put community notes on a tweet sent by Elon Musk? He tweeted that the USA spends 2/3rd of European defense, his claim is the same a the image in my post.
This is what the USA spends to NATO, the whole defense budget is $1.4 trillion.
the u.s. spent 860 on total defense. the remaining part of the budget to 1.4T is veteran expenses. I suppose wherever you're at, you don't have access to the whole internet.
USAID also funded a lot of services for veterans. Many veterans are suffering right now as their benefits were cut too.
the only service usaid would fund for veterans, is if one was employed by them. There is no domestic services provided by usaid to veterans.
Sauce?
https://2017-2020.usaid.gov/work-usaid/careers/veterans-opportunities
Ain't much, but it's all gone now.
Thanks for that link for employment opportunities, but you stated their benefits were cut. That's the sauce I was looking for. How US Agency for International Development (USAID) has any ties to US veteran benefits?
Out of Nato. WW II was a LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time ago. No more Marshall Plan for you!!
Americans be like:
Yeah...go ahead and shut down
GladioNATOThat $860B would break off EVERY SINGLE of the 325 million Americans $2600.00 in Dividend Dollars
Europeans hate us and our way if life - Defense is up to you now.
During the time of the expansionist Soviet Empire, NATO served an important purpose.
Times have changed. If Europe still wants NATO, let them fund it themselves.
US involvement $$-wise in NATO is somewhat, somewhat outdated like those old forts you see when you enter the bays of Manila, or Puerto Rico and other countries. When rocket attacks can bypass a fortress on the coast, that fortress is of little use unless there is a physical presence of the enemy which wont happen as they can parachute in to secure said fort from behind. NATO countries in Europe could increase their standing army and equipment enough to hold off any Russian advance until the US arrived to bomb the Russians into oblivion if they chose. (Notwithstanding MAD).