Earlier quoted context omitted.
Among reasons for the American spend (1) it helps to support the nuclear non-proliferation cause, and has historically been used to dissuade Australia and Japan and South Korea and West Germany from creating their own nuclear weapons programs; (2) because the US has historically guaranteed northern Europe against a USSR tank invasion, though this may no longer be relevant; (3) the US is security guarantor for much of…
>>" it helps to support the nuclear non-proliferation cause [..]" The non-proliferation cause it's another way of saying "we are the only one that should have nuclear capability". It doesn't look like to me that the USA is interested in a world without nuclear weapons (1), only in a world where the others don't have nuclear weapons. >>"If Europe is not freeloading, why was there so much negative reaction by European…
> only in a world where the others don't
> have nuclear weapons
> If the problem is freeloading and defense, instead
> of "business", why being against spending the money
> in European military industry?
On this theme - there was an interesting Foreign Policy paper arguing that the F35 program serves as a US version of the belt-and-roads initiative. Still, it must be half-decent or countries would not buy it. e.g. Australia is licensing its recent sub design from France. But, it is buying the F-35, despite the lock-in problems. Israel produces an astonishing amount of its own tech but, likewise, is buying the F-35.
> I notice that you don't address the question
> that Europe already spend more than Russia.
My themes in the original comment was the notion of the European military on two grounds. (1) If military goals were important, nations would/should have been lifting their weight in NATO. (2) There are obstacles to creating a command structure for a European military, which is a very weak federation.