Editor,
Donald Trump doesn’t understand NATO. Claiming missing payments is blatant nonsense. No country is in default on membership payment. Two percent of GNP is suggested for their own defense, not as NATO payment. GNPs vary, depending upon each country’s funding. Countries with effective defense need less than 2% No cost impacts the U.S.!
Far more important is the mutual protection of NATO, in existence for 75 years, with growing membership. No NATO country has been attacked since becoming a member. Why has Putin been resisting Sweden and Finland’s membership? Why is Putin so afraid of NATO, and why has he worked on Trump to trick him into supporting him? The reason is obvious: Putin doesn’t dare to attack a NATO country, and never has, rightfully fearing compact retribution if he were stupid enough to do so. Would he ever attack Ukraine if that country were a member? Not a chance.
Thanks to NATO, Putin wouldn’t dare to attack the United States, while Hitler had planned to drop his first test A-bombs on London and New York, prevented by some brave Norwegian skiers who sabotaged the Rjukan heavy water plant, thus delaying the material Hitler so desperately needed. Instead, they were able to divert some to the United States, for the benefit of the Manhattan Project.
What a difference, preventing heavy water from falling in adversarial hands, versus carrying the lighter variety for our adversary, even pulling out of NATO, and encouraging Putin to attack other countries. The epitome of insanity.
Jorg Aadahl
San Mateo
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(38) comments
Good morning, Jorg
I'm sure you're aware that eleven NATO countries, including the US, contribute more than 2% of their GDP to the alliance. However, nineteen countries contribute less. Maybe if those countries paid 2% then the US would not have to underwrite two thirds of NATO's total defense expenditures. Some of NATO's member nations are getting the best defense money can buy, but they're not paying for it.
Ray: The 2% is just a suggested NATO guideline, and not anything the US has to substitute for if a country is below, any more than the US is getting a relief from countries spending more than 2%. There is no impact on us. Let me use Norway as an example: That country takes national defense very seriously, for obvious reasons: sharing a border with Russia, and being run over by the Nazis in WWII. Yet, they spend a little less than 2%. Why? It is not that they can’t afford more, it is because they have decided they don’t need more! That country’s defense is very solid, with an advanced weapon industry, with weaponry delivered to Ukraine, and even sold to other countries, including the US, which also produces weapons on licenses from Norway. Relative to its small size population wise, Norway has a relatively large GNP, which the defense percentage is related to. With no change in defense spending, the NATO percentage would have been larger with a lower GNP! Simple math, actually.
OK Jorg - you nailed the problem with NATO ."It is not that they can’t afford more, it is because they have decided they don’t need more!" That is, until it hits the fan and they will be on their knees in Norway and the other non-compliant members to beg for help. Incidentally, the Dutch and German military have warned their governments to step up their armament procurement. Problem is, besides funding, the war industry in Europe has been neglected and the little that Norway can contribute is not anywhere close to sufficient.
Jorg probably forgot that 13 NATO employees, who worked in the UNRWA division, worked with Hamas to help coordinate Hamas' attack on Israel. Consequently, if I were a NATO member I wouldn't feel too confident that NATO has my back and that my financial donation has any value. NATO member Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said "the Palestinian militant group Hamas was not a terrorist organization but a liberation group fighting to protect Palestinian lands." Terrorists are now victims, right Jorg? But this entire mess in the world falls 100% in the lap of the weak kneed old man in the White House. Joe dropped Trump's stick and now only walks softly with his pacifier. Russia, Iran, Hamas, China are all testing and Joe and he's failing miserably.
My goodness, Dirk, how ignorant you can be, without understanding that you are! What on Earth do you know about Norway's defense and weapon industry? Nothing! apparently.
Presently, the US shells out two thirds of NATO's total defense expenditures. Are you saying if the other 30 NATO member countries followed the Norwegian model, then the US would not need to provide for Europe's defense?
I'm not too worried about Putin rolling T-90s down ECR and neither is the Polish government. However, Poland does have a legitimate concern that ol' Vlad may want to roll into downtown Prague... he wouldn't be there to enjoy a slice of Andrut and a cup of kawa. That's why Poland spends more GDP on NATO than any other country... including the US. The rest of Europe needs to step up.
What do you mean by "the US shells out two thirds of NATO's total defense expenditures" Ray? Do you mean that US' 3.49% of its GNP equals 2/3 of the entire sum of all individual country expenditures? Of course, the US is a huge country, with a GNP to match, including all sales of weaponry to others, so that might be possible.
Hey, Jorg
Not So Common is correct.
"The U.S. contribution makes up two thirds of the total NATO defense expenditures." ABC News
Ray - please inform Jorg that Norway is not among the 10 largest weapon manufacturers but is the 8th largest worldwide for weapon imports. It is ludicrous to assert that Norway, a nice country BTW, has a substantive role in supplying NATO with weaponry. The small border with Russia is a concern but the country is far more worried about its vulnerable exports of natural gas and North Sea oil on which its economy now depends. The coast line would be a target in a conventional war but that seems an outdated concept. Looking at Norway's flag, Jorg may be dismayed to find out that the cross on it harks back to its Christian origin.
Good morning, Dirk
A search of leading arms manufacturers and suppliers yields a variety of sources and similar results. The US is No. 1 followed by Russia. China is ranked No. 4 or 5, and you'll find 5 or 6 European countries plus Israel (and maybe South Korea) rounding out the top ten. Norway comes in around No. 18.
Dirk: Perhaps a little hard for you to swallow, but ever heard of NASAMS, the missile defense system credited with near 100% success rate in Ukraine? Development of NASAMS began in the 1980s when Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace (KDA) teamed up with Hughes Missile Systems and Hughes Aircraft Ground Systems Group and initiated the program as a cooperative effort for the Royal Norwegian Air Force (RNoAF). As originally envisioned, NASAMS would replace two Nike Hercules facilities in defending Norway's southern air bases, where it would act in conjunction with F-16s in providing a layered defense.
Thanks, Ray, that was interesting info, surprised that Norway ranks as high as #18, though, such a relatively small country, but I know that they export a lot.
Ray, you are spot on. It's actually 68% - The U.S. allocates almost twice as much of its GDP -- $860 million -- as European allies and Canada do together -- roughly $404 million. The U.S. contribution makes up two thirds of the total NATO defense expenditures.
Nice try Jorg. There is no evidence that heavy water from the Rjuvak plant was used in the Manhattan project. That plant, as you correctly mention was destroyed by heroic Norwegian saboteurs. The US had three plants operating to produce heavy water for the Manhattan Project.
Now this, Putin never attacked NATO countries as their defense systems were paid for by us, so he would know that such aggressive action would involve the US under Article 5. Trump had found out that most NATO allies were not paying their fair share and threatened to walk away if they did not start paying up. The members are slowly beginning to meet their obligations and are now shaking in their boots because Sugar Daddy Sam may be forcing them to comply. If you are reading the European news sources you can tell that they are depleting their own, already sparse, military stockpiles to support Ukraine which, in turn, is sending a signal to Putin that they feel vulnerable. Bottom line is that they are still counting on the US to keep them afloat as they essentially refuse to allocate funding for defense at a level that would dissuade Putin from even trying. Trump's warning is appropriate, the NATO members' combined economy is stronger than ours and they should pull up their own pants, finally, after the US has pulled their coals out of the fire twice. No wonder they prefer Biden. With him in the WH, they can continue to offer 6 week vacations and lavish welfare benefits, all at our expense.
Too bad that Neal Bascomb, the author of "The Winter Fortress - The Epic Mission to Sabotage Hitler's Atomic Bomb", didn't consult with you, Dirk, before he wrote about diverting badly needed heavy water to both London and the US. Have you written to him, explaining from where you have your ultimate wisdom?
Jorg - I have access to other sources but I will read the book. If I was misinformed I will correct my understanding and let you know.
Fascinating book, indeed! I know most of the Norwegian places mentioned, and have visited several. I have known closely a couple of former saboteurs, one a member of Company Linge, and actually attended graduate engineering university with one guy mentioned, studying chemical engineering in Trondheim. I didn't know him personally, but we all knew who he was, son of Professor Tronstad, and my age.
Jorg - according to your recommended book by Neal Bascomb, there were minute quantities, milligrams, exported to a few countries, including the US, by Norway in 1935. This was long before the nuclear program even started in the US and the Manhattan project was not even a pipe dream at that time. The only quantities that had been produced by 1940, 25 kilograms, were smuggled out of Norway by the French Secret Service and brought by plane via Scotland to Paris. The Germans forced the Norwegians to step up production and also introduced their own production enhancements. Incidentally, Oppenheimer was the first scientist who sketched out the design for a nuclear bomb. I don't believe the Germans ever got that far. It is clear from the book that Norway produced several top notch physicists with nuclear knowledge.
Thanks, Dirk, for that update. I'm guessing Norway would have been receptive to spiriting out some heavy water to the US if that would have been possible, but it looks like the French... wanting to move their own nuclear program forward... got in and got out before the Wehrmacht occupied Norway.
Hello, Jorg
The story of the courageous Norwegian resistance fighters is one everyone can admire... no doubt. And like a lot of history, much of what happened at Vemork is not always told. The British attempt to knock out heavy water production failed, but the Norwegian effort in early 1943, as told by Neal Bascomb, succeeded... for a while. The plant was back in production six months later. Amercian bombing raids in the fall of 1943 convinced the Germans to relocate their stores of heavy water. Re-enter brave Norwegians again... they sunk the German ferry transporting the heavy water. The heavy water that made its way to London may have come via the French who spirited heavy water out of Norway before the German invasion. I looked but could not find Bascomb's reference to Norwegian heavy water being diverted to the Manhattan Project. Can you help me out?
Sorry, Ray, I don't remember exactly where in Bascomb's book he refers to some heavy water being "stolen" from the Germans and smuggled off to both London and the US. He may not have mentioned the Manhattan project in the same sentence, but did mention it several times, as far as I remember.
I'm impressed, though, that you know so much about the raids!
Hey, Jorg
Thanks for the kind words. I was aware of the French getting some heavy water out of Norway before the Germans rolled into town. The
Oops... sorry... I have opposing thumbs but they can be clumsy.
The French were also working on developing an atomic bomb and the story of how they got their eau de lourd out of Vichy France is another story of WWII courage. That water made its way to London.
I have never heard that anyone smuggled heavy water out of Norway for use by Amercian scientists. Coincidentally, an expatriated British acquaintance was visiting me this morning and I mentioned your post about Vemork water making its way to the States. He has a vast knowledge of WWII, particularly events in the European Theater, and he drew a blank also. So, I'm looking forward to Dirk's book review of Bascomb's work to get the skinny about the heavy water.
Dirk: There is so much nonsense here that I don’t know where to start, - nor do I know if facts will have any impact on you. While some NATO members may benefit from some US help, they are far from most, and certainly not Norway, a country that doesn’t need any foreign help at all, but which is sending a lot of weaponry to Ukraine, including powerful NASAMS missiles, which they manufacture themselves and arm several countries with, including the US, - whether you like it, or not.
Jorg - Norway is small fry in this arena. The ranking that Ray mentions is a bit misleading because Norway is a relatively small contributor which is be expected due to its size and its population. The system that you mention is technological impressive and I am sure many nations are glad to have access to it. However, if Norway and some of the other nations did not need any foreign help, why would they be a member of NATO? Just for a coffee klatch?
You still don't understand the purpose of NATO, Dirk??? "One for all, all for one!" Get it now?
Jorg... thanks for the info about Norway's weaponry that is helping Ukraine stand up to Vlad. Europeans supporting Europeans. On the matter of armament manufacturing and exporting... Dirk is correct. Norway is like a kipper swimming with sharks... but that is a choice Norway has made in its best interests.
Dirk, you said "Jorg may have a problem with comprehension" I think that goes without saying. It appears he forms opinions based on ideology and desires and certainly not comprehension.
Haven’t we strayed away from the main point in this letter, namely that NATO has kept member countries safe for 75 years, - kind of exceptional if we look back at history, isn’t it? New members are being added, with Sweden next, while clueless, irresponsible Donald Trump encourages Putin to attack countries not investing as much in their own military as some others! And there are Republicans with trump’d up brains who still want this totally incompetent moron back in the WH, - someone so dense he doesn’t even understand what’s in his own, best interest! Get real, people, and wake up, before it is too late! Remember how close we were, before Trump was removed, and after he had been prevented from using some of our worst weapon against a perceived adversary? Remember his words: “Since we have it, why not use it?”
There are simply too many comments to respond to directly, so let me address the too common problem reflected in most of them. How irresponsible, shallow and Trumpian to suggest that the German A-bomb development wasn’t that important, - based om what? Why were those with inside knowledge so concerned that young guys were sent on virtually impossible missions, where many died and those who made it all the way to the Rjukan heavy water plant to blow it up, went through unbelievable efforts to get the job done. Those who claim to have read Neal Bascomb’s “The Winter Fortress” don’t seem to have understood much of the story, yet they claim to know and understand more than those involved some 80 years ago.
The point of my initial LTE was the importance of NATO, which has kept the increasing number of member countries safe from being attacked, for 75 years! How dangerous to let someone as ignorant, untrustworthy, and careless as Donald Trump have any decision power in anything that important to all of us, not to mention his unfortunate impact on gullible and easily fooled, blind followers, who vote without thinking. The great and understandable fear back then was what would happen if Germany had been successful developing an A-bomb, with Hitler’s first two test bombs already assigned to London and NY. Is it so hard to imagine what world and history changing impact that would have had? Why not just trust those who understood back then, and who sacrificed so much.
The insiders back then credited the saboteurs for delaying the German A-bomb development enough for WWII to come to an end, just in time. We should all be grateful for their sacrifices, and have enough respect not to engage in a senseless debate about whether it was necessary, or not. How shallow and disrespectful towards people we should show eternal gratitude!
Jorg - as is your tradition, you miss characterize my and the other responses. Most western nations were aware of nuclear science and the potential development of an atomic bomb. German scientists were ahead in this field and were still able to share their findings with the international science community before the war broke out. Thus, Germany, France, the USA and Great Britain had active laboratory-based programs before the war. If you had read your recommended book carefully, which you apparently did not, you would have read that only Germany had tangible plans to use the nuclear technology, which was still in its infant stages, for a bomb. They were getting nowhere even though they had plenty of heavy water by 1943 and were conducting fission experiments. Meanwhile, Hitler decided that the V-1 and the V-2 rockets had more short term promise and diverted funding from the nuclear program. Germany's nuclear research activity was still kept alive but it was not sufficient to build the infrastructure around it to actually build the device. Even GB realized that they could not afford a comprehensive effort and as a result teamed up with the USA in 1942 as we had sufficient funding for the war industry. It was an undeniable race against Germany. Most of the heavy water that was accumulated by Germany was after the war transported to the US with the assistance of the German scientists who did not want the material to fall in the hands of the Soviets.
Nobody on this forum has discounted the important and sacrificial efforts by the British Secret Service and the Norwegian heroes who did all they could to stop the flow of heavy water to Germany. While they were able to delay Germany's nuclear bomb development, if you read the book, most of their efforts were ultimately in vain as enough heavy water made it to Germany anyway. Because of funding constraints and internal strife in the scientific community was Germany never able to produce a functioning nuclear device in time, but they tried.
Wow, Dirk, thanks for the Dirk’sNotes (as opposed to CliffsNotes - are they still around?) version and as an added bonus, popping Jorg’s bubble (which occurs on a regular basis for pretty much most, if not all, of Jorg’s stances, especially the 2A and EC).
Hey, Dirk
Thanks for that summary. It was thorough and provided context. I'd like to add...
"Although it is now clear that the German nuclear program never came close to producing a bomb, there is no doubt that it provided an impetus for the Manhattan Project." Atomic Heritage Foundation
The scholarly consensus now says the Germans had not progressed to the point where they could enrich the fuel needed for a bomb. The Allies spirited German scientists to England after Germany collapsed. They were sequestered under lock and key. When Germany's leading scientist, Werner Heisenberg, was informed In August 1945 that the US had dropped an atomic bomb on Japan, he said he didn't believe the Americans had such a weapon. Why? He knew the German program was still years away from building a working bomb and he assumed the Americans needed a lot more time, too.
Did you find a credible source verifying that Norwegian heavy water from Vemork found its way to the Manhattan Project? Do you know if Bascomb's book provides any such evidence?
I don't think the Allied personnel and Norwegian commandos who died in the multiple attempts to halt production at Vemork died in vain. Those attempts convinced the Germans that they needed to move their heavy water to Germany... that's when the Norwegian resistance sunk the ferry transporting the German heavy water away from Vemork. That bit of sabotage ended any real or perceived threat that Germany might build an atomic weapon. They had to do it.
Ray - according to his writing and my subsequent studies, no heavy water was ever used in the Manhattan project. Instead, the US built its own three production plants. The residual, unused heavy water that was stockpiled in Germany was transported to the US after the war. Its location identification and its transfer was approved by Heisenberg himself. We may never know the whole truth but many scholars, and those familiar with Heisenberg, believe that he may have purposely stalled the nuclear project in Germany. As a scientist, he believed that there should be a peaceful use for fission, which turned out to be the same opinion of our Oppenheimer. He had more of a moral standing than Werner Braun who justified all in the service of his country.
Addendum/correction - no heavy water from Norway or from Germany was ever used in the Manhattan project.
Dirk: You can’t possibly have read the book, perhaps only thumbed through it, and you certainly don’t seem to have understood much. Try to re-read for example p.214, where you should be able to find a concluding sentence: "The Nazi atomic program had been delivered an assured blow, and Tronstad was eager to know more”.
But with your unlimited wisdom you probably know that it wasn’t so?
Dirk: A huge book like Bascom's may be hard to digest, but perhaps this from miss Google might help:
Did Leif Tronstad know he was going to sabotage the atomic bomb?
• They were going to sabotage the Nazi atomic bomb. But only Capt. Leif Tronstad, Sr. knew it. A week before Christmas, 1942, Tronstad gathered the six men he was about to send behind German lines as they prepared to ship out.
https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2017/11/the-daring-mission-that-thwarted-a-nazi-atomic-bomb
Did that help?
Look Jorg - you may have a problem with comprehension. I had acknowledged that Tronstad, not by name, was aware of the setback and the Germans were dealt a blow. But, ultimately, the Germans continued their research and performed laboratory fission experiments. For the other reasons that I mentioned they were not able to produce a working nuclear device in time. I would be the last person to diminish the incredible efforts made to stop the heavy water production and that also not my role. The bottom line is that we beat the Germans to it. That was also partially due to the earlier efforts by the Norwegians and the British. Eventually, the Americans bombed the power plant, as you may know. We even got into this conversion because you had indicated that Norwegian heavy water was used in the Manhattan project. No big deal actually, but your assertion was incorrect. I am glad that you brought this up because I was able to get educated on what really happened in those days. So, for that alone, thank you!
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.