it doesn't. you just want it to
every time we get on the topic of defending other countries it seems like mutual benefit is the kryptonite of conservative users
Defending the Nordic countries (Sweden in particular) is of no mutual benefit. They're loving themselves over right now because their economy
is beginning to struggle on account of the growing numbers of unskilled workers and the lack of vacant unskilled jobs for those workers. The relative scarcity of qualified laborers will become an issue, and Sweden's ability to maintain their comparative advantage in automobile manufacturing and iron production remains to be determined.
NATO is a relic of the Cold War and at the time, the United States wasn't concerned with the expenditure to defend other NATO members, as having allies in case of war with the Warsaw Pact nations/USSR was more important.
At the current moment, there is no need for this. The United States possesses the world's premier fighting force and it is absolutely no contest. The two closet countries in "firepower" are China and the Russian Federation, but neither is batstuff crazy enough to fight the United States in a direct war.
Quite frankly, NATO is antiquated and a money-sink. It would be fine if every country was paying relatively the same percentage of their GDP for mutual defense, but that isn't how NATO works in reality. Other countries such as Sweden are just mooching off of the alliance without contributing (5% of their budget goes towards defense vs 54% of the US budget)
Quite frankly, the threat of another World War is low at best, and it likely would be nuclear, meaning we're all forgeted anyway, hence why maintaining NATO is a questionable use of money.
Poll