American Military Bases (and other Spending)

[daleduke17]

So, in a different thread, we were talking about military spending and military bases overseas. Here is my question: Why do we have military bases on every continent and in several different countries?

We have bases in: Bulgaria, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kosovo, Kuwait, South Korea, Afghanistan, Australia, Bahrain, Brazil, Cuba, Djibouti, Greece, Italy, Spain, UAE, Greenland, Kyrgyzstan, Netherlands, Oman, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Turkey and United Kingdom.

I understand a lot of these are from past conflicts but are they really needed now? Some of these are in "powder keg" regions, but the US does not have to be the babysitter (or lifeguard as someone else has said) all the time. Plus, we have Guam, Mariana Islands, Alaska and other regions that put us "in play" if anything goes awry.

Also, do any other countries have bases in several different countries (aside form the UK as they are unique)?

[SkullKing]

So, in a different thread, we were talking about military spending and military bases overseas. Here is my question: Why do we have military bases on every continent and in several different countries?

We have bases in: Bulgaria, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kosovo, Kuwait, South Korea, Afghanistan, Australia, Bahrain, Brazil, Cuba, Djibouti, Greece, Italy, Spain, UAE, Greenland, Kyrgyzstan, Netherlands, Oman, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Turkey and United Kingdom.

I understand a lot of these are from past conflicts but are they really needed now? Some of these are in "powder keg" regions, but the US does not have to be the babysitter (or lifeguard as someone else has said) all the time. Plus, we have Guam, Mariana Islands, Alaska and other regions that put us "in play" if anything goes awry.

Also, do any other countries have bases in several different countries (aside form the UK as they are unique)?

Probably, because it increases their control and troop mobility over the world.

There are no american military bases in Brazil.

[daleduke17]

Probably, because it increases their control and troop mobility over the world.

There are no american military bases in Brazil.

It is a Naval Support Detachment in Sao Paulo.

[s_stabeler]

There are actually a few reasons for the overseas bases, some of them rendering some bases unlikely to be closed for the forseeable future

1) NATO. The European bases are there primarily as a holdover from the Cold War. Remember that there were several times when the Cold War nearly became WW3. The US was, and remains, committed to defend NATO countries in the event of an attack. The bases were established to allow a faster response to an attack.
2) Bilateral defense commitments. Off the top of my head, in the event of an invasion of South Korea, japan or Taiwan, the US has pledged to help defend them. ( Japan from WW2, since Japan was forced to become a pacifist nation, Korea from the Korean war, Taiwan to discourage China from attacking it.)
3) cost. Britain is looking to bring it's troops in Germany home, and is currently trying to house them in former RAF bases. We will still probably have to build new bases. Bringing home the troops from abroad wouldn't actually save much money, since they still have to have a base. ( the primary saving is in transport costs. the primary cost is potentially needing to build a brand new military base.)

[mikoyan29]

The German bases are still there because of our commitments elsewhere. They make a good stopping point from the Middle East or wherever.

[daleduke17]

See, if we stop having to play babysitter and stopped getting involved in everyone's scuffles, we wouldn't need to have bases all over.

There are several other countries that could step up and patrol for a bit. South Korea has almost 9 million troops (active + reserve). India (are they friends with us or Pakistan?) has just shy 5 million, Brazil just under 2 million and a few others right around the 1-3 million mark.

As far as military spending, the US spends 41% of the World's share of military spending. I think we can cut back. Back a few bases off, send the troops back to the US to the military bases that have room (or re-open a few of the shuttered ones). It would be cheaper to have a US base on US soil than on foreign soil plus it helps the local economy giving jobs to civilians on and off base.

[Greenday]

There are several other countries that could step up and patrol for a bit. South Korea has almost 9 million troops (active + reserve). India (are they friends with us or Pakistan?) has just shy 5 million, Brazil just under 2 million and a few others right around the 1-3 million mark.

South Korea has to worry about North Korea and China.

India HATES Pakistan and is ready to go to war with them at any time.

Brazil has no reason to leave South America.

[SkullKing]

It is a Naval Support Detachment in Sao Paulo.

I stand corrected, guess my info was outdated.

[mikoyan29]

As long as we are a major player in world commerce and as long as 70% of the world is covered by water, we are going to need a Navy. As long as we have a Navy, we are going to need fuelling points around the world. This has nothing to do with us playing babysitter to the world, this has to do with protecting our interests. We have always maintained at least this much through our history (read about the USS Constitution some time). Factor in that air power is a huge factor in modern warfare, we are going to need a few air bases around the world. This again is to protect our own interests. Yes, we can fly B-2 bombers from the United States to anywhere in the world but that is close to a 24 hour mission. So as long as we have bases around the world, we need folks to protect those bases. Now admittedly, we may not need as many of those bases but still.

Now, we also have a few really good allies (Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Germany and Japan to name a few) that we have sworn to treat an attack on them like an attack on us (and vice versa), so we need to maintain somewhat of a presence in those countries. So unless we go full isolationist (in my opinion that would be very bad), we are going to maintain a global presence.

So I don't think we need as many bases as we currently have but we are still going to need a few. And those bases may not have the same footprint they do now...

[bara]

I do believe we need to seriously cut back our military presence around the globe. While many locations need to be maintained for our treaty obligations and to protect some vital interests, those obligations and interests are shared with our allies and they can pick up some slack.

Bottom line is this:
You can't take care of someone else's problems until you deal with your own. A lot of that spending can easily be directed into other programs that will actually benefit the people paying for them.

[crashhelmet]

If you want to cut back on defense spending, quit paying $50 for a hammer and $200 for a bookcase. Quit paying civilian contractors like me $35 an hour and enlisted personnel only $20 for the same job.

As someone who grew up as a military brat and lived all over the world, I can tell you that bases around the world are needed for multiple purposes.

Many bases are used for supply and logistics purposes. If we were to go to war with North Korea, it would be cheaper and faster to ship and refuel out of Okinawa, Guam, or Iwakuni than Hawaii.

Rammstein AFB in Germany is the Air Force HQ for Europe. The Marine Corps HQ for both Europe and Africa is in Boblingen, Germany. Both bases serve as the main logistics hub for those regions.

Think of it like the many airports we have in this country or the countless hubs and distribution centers that companies like UPS have. If and when we need to get aide of any kind to a foreign country, we can't just send it directly from here.

[Greenday]

How do you think we should divide the work? By population? That still leaves the US with just over 34.6% of the work.

Let's face it. We have one of the largest military groups in the world. We have the best equipped military. Our training is top notch.

It's much easier to meet a threat with an established base of operations and we can't do that if our only ones exist in the United States.

[daleduke17]

If you want to cut back on defense spending, quit paying $50 for a hammer and $200 for a bookcase. Quit paying civilian contractors like me $35 an hour and enlisted personnel only $20 for the same job.

Gotta cover up Area 51 somehow :P

Many bases are used for supply and logistics purposes. If we were to go to war with North Korea, it would be cheaper and faster to ship and refuel out of Okinawa, Guam, or Iwakuni than Hawaii.

Guam is a US Territory so I didn't include that one. That is (to me) like having a base in California or Alaska.

Rammstein AFB in Germany is the Air Force HQ for Europe. The Marine Corps HQ for both Europe and Africa is in Boblingen, Germany. Both bases serve as the main logistics hub for those regions.

Think of it like the many airports we have in this country or the countless hubs and distribution centers that companies like UPS have. If and when we need to get aide of any kind to a foreign country, we can't just send it directly from here.

See, we don't always need to be the first ones there with aide (if we even show up at all). Like bara said, you can't deal with someone else's problems until you deal with your own. We have crumbling roads, an illegal immigration problem that needs to be taken care of properly (ie not just saying "y'all are legal now" and then fixing the problem for the future), a healthcare crisis that is only going to get worse (unless Obamacare is repealed) and other issues that need to be resolved before we can wipe other country's asses.

[Andara Bledin]

If you want to cut back on defense spending, quit paying $50 for a hammer and $200 for a bookcase.

Fun facts: You're paying the premium price for product that meets military specifications. Sure, there are probably commercial equivalents that will meet those specifications as well, but they won't carry the guarantee that mil-spec product does.

Also, as often as not, that price will cover things other than just the price to produce the item. I know that some of the orders we get have the cost of shipping rolled into the price of the item because they have the budget for the part but aren't allowed to pay for freight separately.

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

Gotta cover up Area 51 somehow :P

It's actually got its own budget and a full staff of civilian union contractors. If it wasn't a 2 and a half hour drive, one way, from here, I'd be one of them.

Again, you can cut budgets in far more ways than just closing bases. How much of a profit does Lockheed Martin, McDonnel Douglass, or Boeing make off of the fighters, choppers, or missile systems they design and sell to our government? How little do they pay in taxes on that amount?

Apache Longbow - $20 Million USD
Black Hawk - $21 Million USD
Kiowa Warrior - $7 Million USD
A-10A Thunderbolt - $10 Million USD
F-16 - $16 Million USD
S-3A Viking - $28 Million USD
F/A Hornet - As much as $57 Million USD
F-14 Tomcat - $38 Million USD
F-15E Strike Eagle - $31 Million USD
F-15K Strike Eagle - ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS
F-22 Raptor - ONE HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS

Again, how much of that is mark up? How much of that mark up is tax loopholed into CEOs pockets instead of paid back into the government in taxes?

Guam is a US Territory so I didn't include that one. That is (to me) like having a base in California or Alaska.

See, we don't always need to be the first ones there with aide (if we even show up at all). Like bara said, you can't deal with someone else's problems until you deal with your own. We have crumbling roads, an illegal immigration problem that needs to be taken care of properly (ie not just saying "y'all are legal now" and then fixing the problem for the future), a healthcare crisis that is only going to get worse (unless Obamacare is repealed) and other issues that need to be resolved before we can wipe other country's asses.

Closing bases in foreign countries isn't going to fix this.

What you need to remember is that closing bases, no matter where they are, will result people out of work. Whether it's the civilians that held jobs on base or the military personnel themselves that didn't have anywhere to transfer to because the other bases were full, people are going to end up out of work.

These Americans are also going to have to come back home to the states. Forget about where they're going to work for a second and tell me where they are going to live. We don't have the housing.

So now you'll have more people on welfare, more people on housing assistance, more people without insurance causing the health care crisis to get far worse than what you believe Obamacare would do.

Closing bases alone won't provide the funding for roads, immigration, education, medical expenses, or any of the problems you listed. The only way to fix those things is through taxation and regulation. Privatization will never work. Greed will always get in the way.