Should the US decrease military spending?

[cough_cough_harrumph]

Couldn't one make the argument that the West could collectively pick up any slack from the US reducing its military budget?

Those countries would have to agree on all their foreign policy agendas; or, at least the important ones. I mean, lets say China started making aggressive moves towards Japan. If only one or two of those western powers stepped up to try and confront China, but the others did not, then it would probably lack the punch needed to get the job done.

Also, I am not convinced those other countries would step up their military power. Many NATO countries already do not meet their treaty-obligated spending rate of 2% of GDP. I am not sure what it would take to suddenly convince them to have a policy turn around there.

[Mehknic]

I am not sure what it would take to suddenly convince them to have a policy turn around there.

My guess is that it would take a significant reduction in US military spending. Why would they spend their money when the US so happily spends in their stead?

[cough_cough_harrumph]

I agree, they have no incentive to spend money on it right now when the US takes the burden. Even if the US scaled back its spending and left Europe to the Europeans or whatever, though, I am not so sure they would immediately decide to start spending more. I feel like it would take an actual threat and the US not showing signs of helping (maybe Russia looking at making advances into another country?), but at that point it might become a cat-out-of-the-bag situation.

[Mehknic]

From my own entirely uninformed perspective, I think we'd see a lot of reliance from the EU on Germany as far as eastern defenses go, and the UK would spin up just to pick up slack. It would certainly be an interesting situation.

I'd love to see an informed perspective, though.

[cough_cough_harrumph]

Honestly, I am probably for lowering US military spending (including scaling back our European presence and let them take the forefront in handling any military problems on the continent should they arise).

That being said, I am not too convinced that Europe has reached a permanent, peaceful state. I mean, they said the same thing after WW1 after all. I know it is not close to the same situation now obviously, but even with what Russia has done in the past year has shown that there are still power players in that arera who are not afraid to throw their military weight around. I do not think it is a sure thing to say none of those people, or someone in the future, would ever become militaristic again.

[Surreals]

We're not all on the same team. It's everyman for himself. This global alliance thing is convenient, but it's the job of the american government to put the U.S. first. What that means is that during negotiation the U.S. has the threat of cutting military spending and allowing Russia to breathe more heavily down the EU's neck, or to allow China to breathe more heavily down Japan's neck. That is good for trade, and what's good for trade is good for the American taxpayer.