There are parts that are like jobs programs, and the contractors intentionally drive up costs as part of their business model, but there are also real expenses to maintaining stability across the parts of the world where our military operates.
Speaking as one of those allies... not really. Often times US allies spend money they really don't want to in order to keep the US happy. Canada and the UK probably wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan if not for their obligations as US allies. That certainly wasn't cheap. Canada is soon to replace its fighter fleet. Will it buy to cheaper Saab Grippen? Or will it feel obligated to buy the 35, a US program that Canada has paid into (aka subsidized) for many years without actually receiving any aircraft?
Which is, more or less, the main reason.
EDIT: I think the F/A-18 is a great choice and one hell of a plane. The other options, a potentially obsolete F-15 and a maybe delivered in time F-35 aren't that great.
Take for instance Germany. The federal republic increased their spend to $63.8b last year but that's still a shortfall of ~$27b relative to what a 2% spend would be.
Aggressive estimates (above official estimates) of the UK's (a similar sized ally) spending on Afghanistan in 2011m put the total figure at $26b for 10 years.
The cumulative shortfall in NATO contributions for Germany over that period is more than 10 times greater than the entire invasion and continued operations in Afghanistan during that period.
(edit: grammar and dollar signs)
As they only met 1.31% of their 2% spend (which would be $37.5b) the shortfall is ~$15.3b annually.
Still sounds like a bargain.
Besides there are no good reasons for Russia to occupy the baltic states (or atleast the cost would considerably outweigh anything they might gain from it). Subsidizing Crimea is already very expensive and controlling the baltics (no even speaking about Poland) would cost considerably more (both due to lost income and because they’d have to dedicate considerable resources policing the local populations which (unlike Crimea) don’t want them to be there)
Even if you don't take the threat seriously it is obvious that other neutral states do: https://www.reuters.com/article/sweden-nato-idUSKBN28J1UL
I think you are probably right. But this is the kind of thing where being wrong is potentially catastrophic. And the world can change faster than you can adjust your defense posture.
The UK has Trident and was supposed to be buying F-35s. A number of UK military and civilian aerospace projects were either cancelled (various examples) or crippled commercially (Concorde) because of US interference.
The Afghanistan and Iraq misadventures are still causing significant political costs across Europe. Meanwhile the US has failed to protect the EU against some obvious and immediate threats, including political interference. (Although to be fair it hasn't even protected itself - which is a different problem.)
In any case - the US really isn't a credible victim of exploitation in any of this.
this is just not how economics works at all
It gives money to US manufacturers by giving money to other countries that they have to use to buy US products.
Broken windows fallacy.
The propaganda poster you paint here is dubious.
Have you ever looked at a map? Sunni majority nations KSA, Syria, Kuwait, and Turkiye probably have a lot more to do with it than Israel.
Having been to every middle eastern / near eastern / Balkan / North African nation except Libya, I’m not too afraid of Iran.
Iranians have always treated me better than Israelis or myy my fellow Americans have, even after finding out I’m a queer atheist.
I am. They have sworn to destroy Israel and America. They are developing nuclear weapons to do so. They are funding proxy wars throught the Middle East. They are trying to gain control over syria, iraq, yemen etc. The irgc is probably the best funded terrorist organization in the world https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/ . I'm afraid of Iran.
KSA, Syria, Kuwait, and Turkiye probably have a lot more to do with it than Israel.
Depends what you look for. Most visible, front- line opposition, certainly. But who does all the high profile bombing and intelligence raids and computer hacking? I think it's Israel.
-Iranians have always treated me better than Israelis or myy my fellow Americans have.
That's fine! I'm not asking you to hate Iranians, and i'm also not asking you to love Israelis.
What i am asking you is to recognize that Iran is a global threat to peace and that Israel can offer the best answer. I think that's true.
Would it be more honorable if they just invaded countries in the Middle East instead, the way the US does? Of course the US is funding proxy wars as well.
If a beligerant and much more powerful country came across the Atlantic and invaded Mexico and Canada, I know I would want some nukes as a deterrant.
Iran couldn't even defeat Iraq during their brutal eight year conflict. Even if Iran wanted to take over the ME, there is zero chance they would be able to.
Where is your belligerant nation? Not Israel surely. Iran was fine with israel before some terrorist inciters hijacked the country.
In the last 20 years the US has invaded two of Iran's neighbors, Iraq to the west, and Afghanistan to the east.
America is funding proxy wars throughout the midde east too.
> What i am asking you is to recognize that Iran is a global threat to peace and that Israel can offer the best answer. I think that's true.
We are at war with eastasia. We have always been at war with eastasia.
Sorry bro, I don’t subscribe to trumpism, zionism or americanism. No nation is more of a global threat to peace than the usa.
Developed nations don't care because their defense contractors get the money.