Iceland & Nato

[Loki]

Russia isn't our friend.

I don't necessarily want Iceland to arm itself, it certainly wouldn't matter in any sort of war. I want them to pay up to nations who have been keeping the world safe. They can arm up to 2% GDP or they can pay 2% GDP. I suspect it will be easier to pay up. Alternative if they don't want to continue to free load they can depart from the alliance.

That is not how alliances work since ancient Athens and imperial China.

[LittleFuzzy]

You are arguing it from a legalistic definition. I'm talking about foreign policy here. America can (though I doubt it should) simply say "Ya know NATO either you get your shit together and start making Iceland free loaders pay up or we'll leave." NATO is not an eternal agreement. America spent billions in the Cold War and Europe reaped the benefit. Why should we continue to pay for their defense? I'd like to be clear here - I think NATO is absolutely a great thing for America to be a part of however I don't think we should have pacifist freeloaders along for the ride. If they want mutual protection they should pay up.

Iceland is in NATO and we aren't concerned about their lack of spending because what we really, REALLY want from them is their location.

[wiggin]

Iceland is in NATO and we aren't concerned about their lack of spending because what we really, REALLY want from them is their location.

Indeed, the GIUK gap is a fantastic strategic bottleneck for Russian naval operations in the Atlantic. Deployment of SOSUS was a big deal in the Cold War, and continues to be a central plank of NATO defense thinking.

[RandBlade]

Iceland is in NATO and we aren't concerned about their lack of spending because what we really, REALLY want from them is their location.

Exactly, they're not freeloading they're providing a very useful strategic location.