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 moreStatistics are shown for this demographic
Response rates from 532 Houston voters.
61% Yes |
39% No |
48% Yes |
31% No |
12% 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 |
2% No, and we should withdraw from NATO |
Trend of support over time for each answer from 532 Houston voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Trend of how important this issue is for 532 Houston voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from Houston voters whose views went beyond the provided options.
@8JCJLWV4yrs4Y
Yes, but should strongly encourage such nations to increase their support for NATO
@8XHGB7H3yrs3Y
Yes but demand they pay their fair share
@547W2M24yrs4Y
"Defending" each other is how wars are started. Hell no.
@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.
@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?
@548YD534yrs4Y
No country deserves a free ride. Each country has a reasonable responsibility to defend and protect its citizens. But failure of a government to reasonably defend and protect its citizens doesn't absolve other countries from a moral responsibility to protect and preserve life to the best of their ability.
@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.
Join in on the most popular conversations.
@ISIDEWITH2 days2D