Trump will result in increased defence expenditure in Europe
The NATO treaty requires that all members spend 2% of GDP on defence, and this has been the case since the original treaty was signed in 1948.
As things stand, only seven countries comply with the terms of the treaty - the USA, the UK, France, Greece, Turkey, Poland and Estonia. All the others are seriously underfunded and are free-loading on the countries who are fully funded.
Here is a list of the countries with shortfalls:
Germany - spends 1.2% of GDP ($39.4 billion). Needs to spend another $26.27 billion to meet it's obligations.
Italy - spends 1.3% of GDP ($23.8 billion). Needs to spend another $12.82 billion to meet it's obligations.
Belgium - spends 1.0% of GDP ($3.9 billion). Needs to spend another $3.9 billion.
Denmark - spends 1.3% of GDP ($3.75 billion). Needs to spend another $2.02 billion.
Italy - spends 1.3% of GDP ($14.38 billion). Needs to spend another $7.74 billion.
Netherlands - spends 1.2% of GDP ($8.72 billion). Needs to spend another $5.81 billion.
Norway - spends 1.5% of GDP ($6 billion). Needs to spend another $2 billion.
Portugal - spends 1.1% of GDP ($2.33 billion). Needs to spend another $1.9 billion
Spain - spends 0.6% of GDP ($6.29 billion). Needs to spend another $14.67 billion).
Czech republic - 1.04% of GDP ($1.13 billion). Needs to spend another $1.04 billion.
Hungary - spends 1% of GDP ($1.03 billion). Needs to spend another $1.03 billion.
Bulgaria - spends 1.3% of GDP. ($0.78 billion). Needs to spend another $0.42 billion.
Latvia - spends 1.1% of GDP ($0.28 billion). Needs to spend another $0.23 billion.
Lithuania - spends 1.1% of GDP ($0.463 billion). Needs to spend another $0.378 billion.
Romania - spends 1.4% of GDP ($2.72 billion). Needs to spend another $1.16 billion.
Slovakia - spends 1.1% of GDP ( $0.96 billion). Needs to spend another $0.78 billion.
Slovenia - spends 1% of GDP ($0.4 billion). Needs to spend another $0.4 billion.
Albania - spends 1.2% of GDP ($0.11 billion). Needs to spend another $0.07 billion.
Croatia - spends 1.5% of GDP ($0.835 billion). Needs to spend another $0.278 billion.
Who benefits from the increased spending?
Because all these countries are European, they will try to confine expenditure to European defence companies. BAE Systems, Airbus Group, Finmecanica, Thales, Rolls-Royce, Safran, DCNS, Babcock International, Rheinmetall and others should all see increased orders and thus increased profits.
It might be worth buying stocks in these companies to profit from this.
how bout we just shut down NATO?
Well, if everyone actually pays the full amount for defence, NATO is a very good deterrence - it prevents us having to actually go to war. It is when you don't have defence that thinbgs tend to get dicey.
ah..so you are against gun control?
you think that all citizens should be armed?
as a 'deterrence' against criminals?
I was talking about defence against foreign nations, and defence against invasion. You don't seriously imagine you can abolish traditional defence and be able to defend yourself against a Cruise misile deployed by a foreign nation with a pistol do you?
Yep, first Nata then the U.N. Then the E.U.
You make a valid statement in the title which should go on to ask why no one is doing something now. Trump does not start until January.
I think the Europeans will be meeting next week to discuss what to do. The problem with the eurozone countries like Italy, is that they have a difficult budget situation, so they'll need to cut something to increase defence. Germany has no excuses though.
I disagree - Trump has said often that NATO needs to pull-its-own-weight, and good relations with Russia, which would not have existed under Hillary, means less need to increase military expenditures in Europe. "Intelligence" expenditures, is another story, but of course this will be relatively inexpensive, compared to what you have suggested.
This inability or lack of desire, of these European nations to pay for this antiquated organization, which exists for their defense, means it's continued existence should be seriously evaluated.
This post has been ranked within the top 80 most undervalued posts in the second half of Nov 13. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $6.67 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Nov 13 - Part II. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.