Should the U.K. 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. In a July 2016 interview with the New York Times Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump suggested that the United States would not defend NATO member countries who had failed to increase their military budgets to above 2% of Gross Domestic Product. The suggestion defie…
Read moreStatistics are shown for this demographic
Parish
Response rates from 83.1k UK voters.
68% Yes |
32% No |
54% Yes |
25% No |
14% Yes, and refusing to defend other NATO countries sets a dangerous precedent for the balance of global power |
4% 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 83.1k UK voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Trend of how important this issue is for 83.1k UK voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from UK voters whose views went beyond the provided options.
@B24R76S6mos6MO
Yes, but put less effort into the defense of NATO countries that spend less than 2% of their GDP on military defense
@B548WL91mo1MO
Yes, provided the countries in question contribute to the bloc as a whole in other ways e.g. resources, expertise, etc.
@B43DMTD3mos3MO
Yes, but pressure must be applied on those countries to spend sufficiently or risk ejection from nato.
@B42R8W73mos3MO
Yes, but the countries that do not meet the requirements, should have great pressure placed on them to do so, or risk ejection from the alliance.
@thelouisharding 6mos6MO
I think any country that cannot pay its fair share should be aided in finding a way to increase the spending - however, if they refuse to do so still and then go to war I don’t see why anyone else should have to fight for them
@9QC2V7811mos11MO
NO. Like most NATO is old and out of date for the modern world. Time for a newer World Treaty Organization!
@9Q98P7J11mos11MO
Yes, but at the same time, encourage that Country to up it's share to 2% of their GDP otherwise funding will be pulled.
@9Q953CS11mos11MO
You cannot mandate arbiterially the amount a country should spend as their are economics of scale. However, countries should layout what they can afford and how much they will spend to protect themselves and others if they are part of a security pact, and this should be conditional to membership - if they fail to meet a stated obligation, then they are on their own should another country engage militarily with them.
Stay up-to-date on the most recent “NATO” news articles, updated frequently.
Join in on the most popular conversations.
