[TulliusCicero]

> defend itself from what ?"

The article addresses this unfortunate attitude: the whole premise of your question is, "well they'd have to go through these other countries first, so not our problem".

It's a bit like if Kansas refused to pay anything towards the defense budget because any hostile powers would have to go through all those other states first.

But, as the article also notes, air and sea power are things. If a hostile power decides to fuck with one of the many undersea Internet cables that make their way to and through Ireland, what's Ireland going to do about it?

[Animats]

> It's a bit like if Kansas refused to pay anything towards the defense budget because any hostile powers would have to go through all those other states first

That's Spain's current position in NATO.

[TulliusCicero]

I don't entirely disagree, but at least Spain does have some semblance of a real military, even if it's underfunded.

[Spooky23]

The Russians have actively sabotaged undersea cables belonging or connecting to NATO countries. What have they done about it?

In general, states like Kansas are dependent on Federal money anyway, so they they don’t really contribute much. 10 states basically support the Federal government from a tax perspective.

[jltsiren]

Kansas would probably spend very little on defense, if it was a sovereign state.

Defense spending is not virtue signaling. It's money countries may have to waste if they feel threatened. But if there are no credible threats, it's better to lower the taxes or to spend the money on something that actually benefits the citizens.