yeah, the argument: Ukraine war is bad because other countries pay too little, if only Portugal could spend 0.2% of their GDP more, then US should get into it is really weird.
Another point about cost: nuclear deterrence is the only thing that works, but it is expensive, plutnoium costs like 7mln per kg, which means 35mln per nuke head.. So if a country wants just 200 heads, which is deterrrence table stakes, it costs 7bn.
If a country wanta the same 5000 heads arsenal as Russia or US, it needs to spend 150bln dollar on Plutonium alone. You double that for the delivery vehicles. Amortizing this spending over 50 years, this means that US should spend 2bln per year on defense. The rest is pork.
Is that it? If countries need to spend 100mln per year for second strike deterrence, and 3bln per year for superpower deterrence level, this NATO thing is just like US healthcare: inflated bills, noone cares because insurance pays, and then you wonder why insurance premiums are up.
From your keyboard to Trump's ... brain. Such as it is.
Very Well Said
yeah, the argument: Ukraine war is bad because other countries pay too little, if only Portugal could spend 0.2% of their GDP more, then US should get into it is really weird.
Another point about cost: nuclear deterrence is the only thing that works, but it is expensive, plutnoium costs like 7mln per kg, which means 35mln per nuke head.. So if a country wants just 200 heads, which is deterrrence table stakes, it costs 7bn.
If a country wanta the same 5000 heads arsenal as Russia or US, it needs to spend 150bln dollar on Plutonium alone. You double that for the delivery vehicles. Amortizing this spending over 50 years, this means that US should spend 2bln per year on defense. The rest is pork.
Is that it? If countries need to spend 100mln per year for second strike deterrence, and 3bln per year for superpower deterrence level, this NATO thing is just like US healthcare: inflated bills, noone cares because insurance pays, and then you wonder why insurance premiums are up.