The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been active for 70 years. 20 countries donate to keep the defense budget active. This defense budget is then allocated to many areas, such as the construction of weapons of mass destruction. According to the International Law and Policy Institute, an international institute that studies conflicts, it stated that “the United States, the United Kingdom and France possess approximately 7,700, 225 and 300 nuclear weapons respectively” (Eide). Collectively, these three countries possess nearly half of the world's estimated stockpile of nuclear weapons and most of the warheads currently in operation. Defense is a critical 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay In 2016, NATO reported spending approximately three million dollars on equipment that includes missiles, combat bombs, etc. (BORN). The defense budget goes primarily towards weapons of mass destruction which include bombs, nuclear weapons, etc., rather than military weapons. The excessive use and overproduction of these products places 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. The economic perspective of NATO: the United States Without a doubt, the United States of America is the one that spends the most in the military field among all the countries in the world. In 2010 alone, according to NATO estimates, the United States spent almost 5.5% of its GDP on NATO. This value was significantly higher than the other nineteen countries, with Greece in second place with 3% of GDP (NATO). Foreign Affairs writer Philip Breedlove said in 2016 that: “With a budget of $985 million in fiscal 2015 and another $789 million in fiscal 2016, the initiative funded new bilateral military exercises and multilateral and increased deployments of US forces to the continent, supported by the placement of more US 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 following the annexation of Crimea. Much of the defense money ends up being used for weapons of mass destruction. The United States is also facing its own economic problems. Economic problems in turn influence militaristic aspects, as Breedlove also states, “mandatory budget cuts in the United States limit the ability of the Department of Defense 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 continuously produced. The United States is already seeing a decline in overall defense spending, 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 economic problems. The United States will continue to invest substantially more money than others in NATO's defense budget and at the same time lose its own budget. The US budget also serves its military and provides jobs for others, but the overall budget continues to decline. Therefore, NATO funding is becoming a struggle as the months pass, leading to instability within the organization, hence the reductionof weapons of mass destruction would bring greater benefit to members such as the United States. NATO Economic Outlook: United Kingdom Aside from the United States, another power within NATO is the United Kingdom. Like the United States, it also faces a number of economic problems that directly impact NATO. This is further explained by Dorman and his fellow political scientistsLithuania's Defense Program states: "During 2015, Prime Minister Cameron found himself under intense domestic and international pressure due to his reluctance to maintain defense spending defense to the NATO target of 2% of GDP" (Dorman). The United Kingdom is not the only country to miss the 2% target, as countries such as France, Turkey and Norway have also done, according to Peter Baker, a journalist for the New York Times newspaper. Overall, the UK economy has taken several hits. The article goes on to state 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 is leading to a strain on resources, as explained by Christensen, a writer for the British Journal of Politics & International Relations, who discusses several aspects of Britain and its economy. and government. Because of this, the UK is unable to meet not only its own basic needs, but also its contribution to NATO. Since NATO defends itself from the manufacturing sector, it not only creates unattainable obligations for some countries to meet this spending requirement, but also the funding could be directed elsewhere. In 2016, the UK uses only around $56,000 of NATO's defense budget, compared to $644,000 for the United States (NATO). Instead of spending money on weapons of mass destruction, NATO could also allocate the same spending to sanctioning troops, protecting borders, funding military personnel, etc., which may result in better growth and less grip on each member. NATO Economic Outlook: Lithuania Although countries like the United States and the United Kingdom do not see a strong need for weapons of mass destruction, Baltic States countries like Lithuania see a great need for them. According to the Baltic Security and Defense Review, which is closely aligned with Lithuania and its defense, “Lithuania supports the development of NATO's defense capabilities, especially those launched to establish and maintain joint assets” (Defense Policy of Lithuania ). Lithuania, like the United Kingdom, does not meet budgetary requirements as it spends only 1% of its GDP on NATO (NATO). However, due to the annexation of Crimea and Russia's growing threat to the Baltics, Lithuania needs weapons of mass destruction as protection. The article further states that “Lithuania continues to emphasize that collective defense commitment is the first and foremost principle of NATO” (Lithuania's Defense Policy). Lithuania cannot produce weapons at NATO's rapid pace, as NATO had around 150-200 fighter bombs in 2014 alone according to Dr. Robert Czulda, assistant professor at the University of Lithuania. Weapons of mass destruction protect Lithuania from any invasion or attack by Russia, and NATO getting rid of them only makes Lithuania more vulnerable. Russia is committed to nuclear advance programs for the next decade, so for Lithuania and many other allies to be safe, weapons of mass destruction are a must. Lithuania spends only about $638 million on its military, but after adding all the costs for missiles, jets.