Do we need military bases in foreign countrie?

[Samson]

True. While it is more convenient to have bases, outside of Korea, it's hard to imagine one of our bases being in just the right spot to stop opponent X. The threat matrix has changed over time..

Agreed, we should have more bases along the Mexican border.

Right on except I'd have army troops in hummers instead of ICE jeeps.

The M1A1 Abrams 120 mm gun has a range of 12 km. The border with Mexico is 3169 km.

If one Abrams was set every 24 km, then we'd would need 132 tanks to kill anything crossing the border.

Currently US Army operates nearly 4 400 of these tanks.

 

[Redfish]

Deterring regional aggression by means of military bases has been a U.S. military strategy since the end of WWII. We may rely greatly on those bases if we need to go to war.

Why? Do you think a war with China would be a ground war fought from bases in Japan or South Korea? Thats idiotic.

Our bases may be deterring Chinese agression towards Japan and South Korea, but why is that our responsibility? Why shouldn't we be paid for protecting them?

Why do you assume it's China we'd be going to war with? Protecting other nations is just part of the benefit, we're also serving our interests. Having a strong military presence overseas is part of the reason we're unrivaled as a superpower.

We would be stronger if we concentrated that power within our borders. With today's military technology there is no need for ground bases all over the world.

A few subs in each ocean with nuclear missiles is all the power projection we need.

 

[candycorn]

Its a fine line.

I tend to think that we should only be where we are invited and have an option on where the bases are and how long we stay, what type of arms we have there, etc... Basically a 51st state. Under those circumstances, I don't see a big downside. We're a global power and having global presence is only natural.

Your progressive crank opinions mean almost as little to me as they do to Redfish.

Besides that, I wasn't addressing you.

You've obviously confused me with someone who cares. So are you two lovers?

 

[mudwhistle]

I wonder if anyone remembers Desert Storm.

It took 6 months to build up the forces that were needed to move into Kuwait and expel Iraq's invasion forces. Without having bases in the region it never would have happened. You need a foothold next to the places you intend to move into before you even attempt to commit troops. If we brought everyone home it would take over a month to move the troops to where they were needed. You still have to use ships to transport the mechanized forces needed to do the heavy lifting.

Good. Then our politicians would put a lot more thought into whether to declare war (sorry, "authorize the use of force") on other nations for borderline reasons.

Can we rely on anyone else to do this? Can they even afford it? No.

Why? Because their funds are mostly wrapped up in entitlements and infrastructure, not defense.

Did you really think that through?

Is the role of America's military is now supposed to be propping up the welfare states of the rest of the world?

Seriously?

Seems to be. I don't like it myself, but what can you do when most of Europe is Socialist.

 

[candycorn]

Why? Do you think a war with China would be a ground war fought from bases in Japan or South Korea? Thats idiotic.

Our bases may be deterring Chinese agression towards Japan and South Korea, but why is that our responsibility? Why shouldn't we be paid for protecting them?

Why do you assume it's China we'd be going to war with? Protecting other nations is just part of the benefit, we're also serving our interests. Having a strong military presence overseas is part of the reason we're unrivaled as a superpower.

We would be stronger if we concentrated that power within our borders. With today's military technology there is no need for ground bases all over the world.

A few subs in each ocean with nuclear missiles is all the power projection we need.

One sub under the Arctic ice pack that can surface and launch with three hunter/killer subs as escorts more correctly.

PS: This is what we have now Napoleon.

 

[kaz]

Lets talk about this. Why do we have military bases in foreign countries? What national interest are they protecting? Should the host country pay for the base? Should we close them unless the host country pays?

Why is it our role to protect South Korea and Japan from China?

Why is it our role to protect Germany from Russia?

No, we should ultimately have no permanent military bases in any foreign country. All it does is make everyone's enemy our enemy. We prop up bad governments, like in the middle east. We primarily benefit Europe, who stab us in the back, and the governments we are propping up teach their kids in schools to hate us to the kids don't hate them. It's a lose-lose proposition.

I would not close them overnight, but I would create a three phase plan to close bases.

Phase 1) The middle east and other wild west places, create an immediate plan to close them and remove all troops and assets within six months.

Phase 2) For peaceful places like Europe and Japan, work with the governments there to close the bases over the next few years and transition defense smoothly to them. I would put a cap of 3 years to accomplish the transition.

Page 3) The only bases I would not put a timeline on are South Korea and Cuba. In South Korea, they are just under too imminent a threat. I would ultimately close them when they are not, but who knows how long that would take. I would not give Guantanamo back to Cuba until they have a democratic government, so the timeline would be up to them.

 

[mudwhistle]

Agreed, we should have more bases along the Mexican border.

Right on except I'd have army troops in hummers instead of ICE jeeps.

The M1A1 Abrams 120 mm gun has a range of 12 km. The border with Mexico is 3169 km.

If one Abrams was set every 24 km, then we'd would need 132 tanks to kill anything crossing the border.

Currently US Army operates nearly 4 400 of these tanks.

You can't be serious. Why don't we put up artillery pieces on the border and waste anything that moves.

 

[kaz]

Lets talk about this. Why do we have military bases in foreign countries? What national interest are they protecting? Should the host country pay for the base? Should we close them unless the host country pays?

Why is it our role to protect South Korea and Japan from China?

Why is it our role to protect Germany from Russia?

I do not. International bankers do: they need to ensure that no nation is left on earth that is independent of bankers charging interest on their money and thriving.

You people really can work anti-capitalist rhetoric into any conversation, can't you?

 

[kaz]

I believe they could be thinned out but not closed completely. At least not all of them.

why not make the host country pay if they want us there?

Great idea in theory, but since there is no free market, politicians have to set the price. And then you know they are going to manipulate the price of defense with the aid we give the country to justify where the politicians want bases and then we are going to end up accomplishing nothing.

When you trust politicians absolutely not at all in anything that they do, you are reading them pretty accurately.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do we need military bases in foreign countrie?

Depends. Germany and South Korea, yes, because attacks on those countries involves attacking the USA as well.

Military training exchange missions, sure.

Most other countries, no.

We have seen the hollow fallacy of neo-conservatism hard power projected overseas.

Don't need or want or should do it again.

 

[whitehall]

Didn't you read the slogan? "The US Navy (Military) is a global force for good."

 

[kaz]

Do we need military bases in foreign countrie?

Depends. Germany and South Korea, yes, because attacks on those countries involves attacking the USA as well.

Military training exchange missions, sure.

Most other countries, no.

We have seen the hollow fallacy of neo-conservatism hard power projected overseas.

Don't need or want or should do it again.

How exactly do you arrive that attacks on German or South Korean are attacks on the USA but other attacks are not?

 

[mudwhistle]

Do we need military bases in foreign countrie?

Depends. Germany and South Korea, yes, because attacks on those countries involves attacking the USA as well.

Military training exchange missions, sure.

Most other countries, no.

We have seen the hollow fallacy of neo-conservatism hard power projected overseas.

Don't need or want or should do it again.

I'm convinced you're a blithering idiot.

 

[Samson]

Right on except I'd have army troops in hummers instead of ICE jeeps.

The M1A1 Abrams 120 mm gun has a range of 12 km. The border with Mexico is 3169 km.

If one Abrams was set every 24 km, then we'd would need 132 tanks to kill anything crossing the border.

Currently US Army operates nearly 4 400 of these tanks.

You can't be serious. Why don't we put up artillery pieces on the border and waste anything that moves.

Because "anything" is not a Mexican illegally crossing our soveriegn border.

But you have a point:

U.S. Develops Longest Range Artillery Gun
Middle East Newsline
July 18, 2008

WASHINGTON [MENL] -- The U.S. military has overseen the development of what was said to be the longest-range artillery gun.
Science Applications International Corp. has tested a gun with a range of more than 135 kilometers. The Advanced Modular Gun Demonstrator, as part of an $11 million contract with the U.S. Navy, was tested at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centers' Wallops Flight Facility, located in Wallops Island, Va.
"The AMGD provides the defense community with a test platform for advanced gun technology to help meet future needs identified by the military," SAIC senior vice president Tom Baybrook said.

Only 12 such guns would be needed along the Mexican border.

 

[Brain357]

Lets talk about this. Why do we have military bases in foreign countries? What national interest are they protecting? Should the host country pay for the base? Should we close them unless the host country pays?

Why is it our role to protect South Korea and Japan from China?

Why is it our role to protect Germany from Russia?

We should bring them all home and let them spend there money here. Would be a little boost for our economy. It's not our roll to do any of that.

 

[mudwhistle]

Lets talk about this. Why do we have military bases in foreign countries? What national interest are they protecting? Should the host country pay for the base? Should we close them unless the host country pays?

Why is it our role to protect South Korea and Japan from China?

Why is it our role to protect Germany from Russia?

We should bring them all home and let them spend there money here. Would be a little boost for our economy. It's not our roll to do any of that.

Why don't we let the Chinese and Russian troops invade and they can spend their money here?

That would solve everything.

 

[Samson]

Unless it's in our national interest, AND we are invited by the host nation, AND, we have the option on how long we stay, AND where the bases are precisely, no.

Where is this not already the case?

Gitmo down in Cuba seems to come to mind but I have to admit, I'm no expert on this. Did Cuba invite us? I'll bow to your greater knowledge on the subject...like Grumps said...way above my pay grade.

Yes, they signed the contract pre-Castro revolution.

 

[Redfish]

Didn't you read the slogan? "The US Navy (Military) is a global force for good."

submarines, planes, and surface ships can accomplish that with no foreign bases.

 

[Brain357]

Lets talk about this. Why do we have military bases in foreign countries? What national interest are they protecting? Should the host country pay for the base? Should we close them unless the host country pays?

Why is it our role to protect South Korea and Japan from China?

Why is it our role to protect Germany from Russia?

We should bring them all home and let them spend there money here. Would be a little boost for our economy. It's not our roll to do any of that.

Why don't we let the Chinese and Russian troops invade and they can spend their money here?

That would solve everything.

I don't think either would have much to spend or the means to invade.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some clearly do not understand the role of the military in the 21st century. Those who believe in neo-conservatism after the disasters since 2002 are blithering idiots.