The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been active for 70 years. 20 countries donate to maintain the defense budget. This defense budget is then devoted to numerous areas such as the construction of weapons of mass destruction. According to the International Law and Policy Institute, an international institute that studies conflict, stated that "the United States, the United Kingdom and France possess approximately 7,700, 225 and 300 nuclear weapons, respectively" (Eide). In total, these three countries possess nearly half of the world's estimated stockpiles of nuclear weapons and the majority of warheads currently in service. Defense is a basic need for any organization, but with this abundance comes high costs. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay In 2016, NATO reported spending about three million dollars on equipment, including missiles, combat bombs, and more. (NATO). The defense budget is mainly spent on weapons of mass destruction, including bombs, nuclear weapons, etc., rather than military weapons. The overuse and overproduction of these items puts a strain not only on member countries, but on NATO as a whole. Therefore, NATO should manage weapons of mass destruction by reducing the quantity produced. NATO Economic Perspective: The United States Of all the countries in the world, it is undoubtedly the United States of America that spends the most on military matters. In 2010 alone, the United States spent almost 5.5 percent of its GDP on NATO, according to NATO itself. This figure is significantly higher than that of the other nineteen countries, with Greece coming in second with 3% of its GDP (NATO). Philip Breedlove, a writer for Foreign Affairs, said in 2016: "With a budget of $985 million for fiscal year 2015 and an additional $789 million for fiscal year 2016, the initiative funded new bilateral military exercises and multilateral and a greater deployment of American forces. to the continent, supported by the placement of more U.S. military equipment, including artillery, tanks, and other armored fighting vehicles, in Central and Eastern Europe” (Breedlove). This was in response to Russia's growing movement as it expanded its powers after the annexation of Crimea. Much of the money intended for defense ends up being used to purchase weapons of mass destruction. The United States also faces its own economic problems. Economic problems in turn affect the militaristic aspects, as Breedlove also says: "Mandatory budget cuts in the United States limit the Department of Defense's ability to plan for the future... The US defense budget has declined in real terms since 2010” (Breedlove). Weapons of mass destruction are expensive because they must be manufactured continuously. The United States is already seeing a decline in its overall defense spending, going from 330 million in 1990 to 303 million in 2011 (Breedlove). Therefore, the fact that they continue to invest their money in NATO highlights the country's own economic problems. The United States will continue to invest far more money than others in the NATO defense budget, while at the same time losing its own budget. The United States budget also serves its military and creates jobs for others, but the overall budget continues to decline. Thus, NATO financing becomes a challenge over the months, leading to instability withinthe organization, so the reduction of weapons of mass destruction would benefit members like the United States more. NATO Economic Outlook: United Kingdom Besides the United States, another power within NATO is the United Kingdom. Like the United States, it also faces its own set of economic problems that directly affect NATO. This is explained in more detail by Dorman and his colleagues who are political scientists for Lithuania's defense program states: "In 2015, Prime Minister Cameron found himself under intense domestic and international pressure due to his reluctance to maintain defense spending at the NATO target of 2% of GDP” (Dorman). The UK is not the only country failing to meet the 2% target, as countries like France, Turkey and Norway have also done so, according to New York Times reporter Peter Baker . Overall, the UK economy has faced several challenges. The article continues to claim that in 2010 the coalition government cut the defense budget by approximately 7.5% (Dorman). They have also suffered from the financial curse with a Great Recession and growing inequality in spending putting pressure on resources, explained Christensen, a writer for the British Journal of Politics & International Relations, who discusses several aspects of the Great -Brittany and its economy. and the government. For this reason, the UK is unable to meet not only its basic needs, but also its contribution to NATO. Since NATO focuses its defense on manufacturing, this not only creates unworkable obligations for some countries to meet these spending requirements, but funding could also be placed elsewhere. The UK uses only around $56,000 of the NATO defense budget in 2016, compared to $644,000 from the United States (NATO). Instead of spending money on weapons of mass destruction, NATO could also spend that same spending on sanctioning troops, securing borders, funding military personnel, etc., which could lead to better growth and less control over each member. NATO Economic Outlook: Lithuania Although countries like the United States and the United Kingdom do not see a dire need for weapons of mass destruction, Baltic countries like Lithuania see a great need for them. According to the Baltic Security and Defense Review, which is closely linked to Lithuania and its defense, “Lithuania supports the development of NATO defense capabilities, in particular those launched to establish and maintain common assets” ( Defense policy of Lithuania). Lithuania, like the United Kingdom, does not meet budgetary requirements as it devotes barely 1% of its GDP to NATO (NATO). However, due to the annexation of Crimea and Russia's growing threat to the Baltics, Lithuania needs weapons of mass destruction to protect itself. The article also states that “Lithuania continues to emphasize that the commitment to collective defense is the first and foremost principle of NATO” (Lithuania Defense Policy). Lithuania cannot produce weapons at NATO's rapid pace, since NATO had about 150 to 200 combat bombs in 2014 alone, according to Dr. Robert Czulda, an assistant professor at the University of Lithuania. Weapons of mass destruction protect Lithuania from any invasion or attack by Russia, and NATO's getting rid of them only makes Lithuania more vulnerable. Russia is dedicated to nuclear progress programs for the next decade. To keep Lithuania and many other allies safe,.