if civ tought me anything its that your military expenditures dont matter unless you actively conquest. this is just leaving someone the ability to win diplomatically
I think the title should have been "nato Vs the rest", maybe not as fun but more descriptive. Sat here for a while wondering why ireland, sweden, Finland, etc wasn't party of "the west" until I zoomed into the picture and read the legend
What even is the point of this graph? Is it not just a graph of NATO countries with a legend that gives the figures on military expenditures? And saying "The West vs. The Rest" implies that the rest is all on the same side. And it would be hard to argue that Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, and Austria aren't a part of "The West."
![image showing The West vs. The Rest: The World Divided Into Two Approximately Equal Halves by Military Expenditures [OC]](787ee7a7-beab-5057-b07f-58161602d1df.jpg)
newobrain on November 24th, 2019 at 14:57 UTC »
if civ tought me anything its that your military expenditures dont matter unless you actively conquest. this is just leaving someone the ability to win diplomatically
AiedailTMS on November 24th, 2019 at 16:03 UTC »
I think the title should have been "nato Vs the rest", maybe not as fun but more descriptive. Sat here for a while wondering why ireland, sweden, Finland, etc wasn't party of "the west" until I zoomed into the picture and read the legend
MacaroniGold on November 24th, 2019 at 18:15 UTC »
What even is the point of this graph? Is it not just a graph of NATO countries with a legend that gives the figures on military expenditures? And saying "The West vs. The Rest" implies that the rest is all on the same side. And it would be hard to argue that Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, and Austria aren't a part of "The West."