Should USA have bases overseas?

I live on an Airbase in Japan, and I understand the importance of having a stratigic airbase here. However, i'm not sure if I would think the same if I weren't living here, so whats your guys opinion? Should the Usa have bases overseas in places like England, Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, South Korea, and else where? (Oh no! I just compromised NATO locations!)

I'm extremely isolationist in my views of the U.S. global presence. I think we (as in the United States) need to learn to keep to ourselves more. Dialogue, trade, etc... are all important, but sometimes I think we let it get to our head. We don't rule the world, and sometimes we need to stop butting into other global interests, but I suppose that doesn't exactly answer the question at hand, but suffice it to say I don't think the U.S. should.

What made me consider this is the fact that our allies don't have bases on US soil, so while we have Navy or Airbases taking up land in japan or england, they don't have any bases in our country. I don't imagine americans would like an army base in their city that they were not allowed to enter without special permission.

The guys I work with just don't complain because it provides them with jobs.

The way I see it, I don't think of it as trying to claim other countries. Isn't it like a trade agreement? If you agree to do business with my country I will also in return protect that agreement with military security. That's just my opinion on it. Jericho Antares , is in the military I'm sure he knows.

That is something to think about, but I would have to go with yes. There is no real need to worry about the U.S attacking them so I don’t really see the problem. Like Jonoe said it’s not as if we are invading them, they allowed us to put the military base there. If someone were to attack them then they would have the immediate support of the U.S base there. So it’s like having a reassurance policy that if they are attacked the U.S won’t just say it’s none of our business, that’s the way I have always seen it.

Though I don’t think I would really care if there was a British or Japanese military base near me, though I would wonder why there is one here as there would be absolutely no tactical reason for a base here.

Its rather outdated considering that there isnt much of a communist threat.

Why not?

I don't see an issue with keeping a small force overseas, for no more reason then to have a military facility in other countries. Countries that aren't now, but may at some point, become a threat.

On the other hand, we need to stop this "nations" shit, form a Terran Empire, and head into space, but that's just my opinion.

Have you heard of the rumors that the news has been spewing out? That North Korea would be launching various missiles on July the 4th? I think it's just hype, but then again you can never be too sure.

Lol, what the fuck? Watch the news buddy...

I don't see how anyone in Japan can complain about a US army base there. In fact, I'd be happy if I were a Japanese considering their circumstance of having restrictions on the army which render them pretty much defenseless.

I for one think US helping out other countries is great. As I have mentioned before, I was born in S. Korea, and would probably be serving in the N. Korean military right now if it weren't for US intervention.

But with all this shit thrown at the US for trying to help, I think I'd rather have the US pull out of every country. We're just wasting our tax dollars on helping out countries who shun our help.

No need for it.

There's this thingy called "Aircraft Carrier" and its fleet, which can be deployed to everywhere on earth in 24 hours, that could serve as a military base for preventive actions and small-to-medium-sized conflicts that is becoming the trend as of late.

Need air power? Catapult some F-15.

Need land power? There's marine landing ship in the fleet, complete with some ground vehicle and hovercraft on board. The Marines could do all the things that Army can do these days anyways i believe.

Need naval power? what do you need? subs? fregate? it's all in.

So yeah, i think fleets of aircraft carriers is sufficient to do what USA overseas base do. Just forge a pact with local government(that could use some help, like South Korea) for supplies, dockings and repairs in case of conflicts.

Example : Forge a pact with Japan to provide, say, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and its armada with supplies, fuel, maintenance and docking.

There. No need to waste US tax for senseless bases overseas. Overseas bases are simply overkill.

No offense for OP and all soldiers that's being stationed in overseas base. Just stating my opinion.

Even a non-militant civilian can understand the value of time during an attack. Who the fuck has 24 hours when 1000s are dying every minute?

Also, it probably costs just as much if not more (if we're talking about a base with equal capacity as the AC) to maintain an aircraft carrier than a US military base.

Also, there are a lot of advantages to having a military base vs. an aircraft carrier. More vehicles. Can be expanded. Heavy aircrafts can land. More troop capacity. Medics are easier to access. etc. I could probably name a lot more.

But as I said, if it's not appreciated, then I say pull out.

BTW welcome back mnx. :)

One of the former presidents made it a principal of the United states to be the law enforcement of the western Hemisphere. I'm not sure which one nor can I find it on google so I'll need somebody to back me up on that. Anyways, while the U.S. has many bases around the world the U.S. treats is like a police department in every part of the world. If you want the police to be effective at their jobs they can't be half a world away.

On the note of Japan. It is a standing military order that there is to be no less than one-two aircraft carriers near Japan accompanied by a minimum of two submarines. This is supplemented by the standing base on the country.

While mnx is correct that is it a bit of overkill but, C'mon, this is America! We turn our speakers to 11!

"Example : Forge a pact with Japan to provide, say, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and its armada with supplies, fuel, maintenance and docking."

So yeah, i don't mean to say that it's only deployed from the states if there's conflict. i'm saying that i could be stationed in any countries that needs some safeguard and/or extra military presence. My bad, should've phrased it more clearly.

I don't know the details about costs and such, but maintaining aircraft carriers and overseas base at the same time costs ya heavy tax. By stationing an aircraft carrier to act as an overseas base, you could cut the costs big time.

About vehicle capacity, just make a pact that says "hey, you, let us put some extra vehicles on your base, we'll cover the maintenances and shits ourselves" or something. And this way, coordinations concerning vehicle deployment with the host country is easier, no?

About landing platforms for huge aircrafts, just use the host country's airbase lol. Use those heavy heli's to relay the goodies.

Expansions? just send another aircraft carrier armada from the states. Don't say that you don't have any armada left, USA have tons of aircraft cariers. And more troops with it.

Medics? what's so hard about building a temporary field hospital? I saw how today's field hospital when tsunami strikes Aceh from TV, and from the general concensus i could say that it's not that disadvantageous compared to real permanent hospital. BTW, USA have this floating hospital ship thingy that they say has some of the fanciest medical goods around onboard. Use helicopters to carry patients there.

The thing with overseas bases is that US tends to act on its own without regard to the host country, because they could easily do so. This is what makes it hard to like from the host country's point of view. With all my aforementioned thingy above, i can say that there's at least some involvement and coordinations with the host country. Try to act on your own? cut the supply 8D. While this could make it less practical and bureaucracy and chain-of-command-clashes prone, it'll be easier for hosts countries to accept foreign military presence on their home turf with it.

I might've oversimplified things up, but i personally think that all the options above are doable. You can give me list of advantages of having an overseas base, and i could give you solutions. My opinion still stands.

And yes, i agree, back off if you're rejected. Girls hate it when guys that was rejected comes back again persistently.


While that might be the culture on homeland US, that is not always the case in the countries US is placing their bases in. And don't say that i don't get the joke or something, FPOD, i'm just trying to make myself look smart.8D

It's good to be back and making long-winding post again.

The Ronald Reagan which is the latest Nimitz class carrier to be built cost upwards of 4 billion dollars just to build. A rough estimate is a Nimitz class costs about 1/2 million a day to run.

I can't find any information on how much is costs to build or operate a military base.

The closest I can think of is the Clinton Doctrine, in itself an extension of Teddy's Big Stick, stipulating the U.S./NATO should take up the task of enforcing "human rights"/preventing genocide in the western hemisphere. That, by the by, was the political dress-up for the Yugoslavian Intervention.

But that is all talk. The U.S. require overseas bases to protect their hegemony, as is their prerogative as the dominant military power. The only questions can be
A) whether these bases are the most economic solution
and perhaps
B) whether it's ethically justifiable to hold bases in dictatorially ruled countries in exchange for supplying these dictatorships with arms and tacit support.

A) is easily answered with "yes", especially as carriers cannot host large numbers of strategic bombers or massed ground movements - war isn't simply a fighter/bomber airstrike. The only viable alternative would be a gigantic swimming iceberg (which the Britons briefly considered in ww2, but understandably dropped).
Ad B) it has to be said that the only alternative is to rent these very same bases (cough Turkmenistan cough) on short notice, again in exchange for arms, money and political support. Might as well hold permanent bases.

Assuming you're referring to my aircraft-carrier-based thingy, i never said that megaton bombers and/or ground forces is excluded, nor do i said that's it's all F-15s and such.....Re-read my posts more carefully.

I mentioned that huge airplanes should just land on the host country's air bases.

And that ground troops of some sort is to be carried with landing ships which could be the part of the aircraft carrier armada.

Like i said, today's US overseas bases tends to act while disregarding the host country's part in it. By creating some sort of joint-armada, combining aircraft carriers(small fighters and bombers), the usage host country's air bases(megaton bombah), and landing ships(tanks APCs infantries/marine) etc. the host country could also do play their part in doing their thing.

Of course i agree that war is not all about fighter/bomber.

I should learn to make my post clearer next time.

And again, i might oversimplify things a lot, but it's not impossible. I'd say it's doable.

You really want your planes serviced by your own ground crews before a combat sortie. Far too much intel there.


You can't really fit an entire modern army into an aircraft carrier armada.
Plus, marine assault operations are a tactician's nightmare, especially with armor.
Besides, what do you do when striking a land-locked country?


Bases do more than just hold troops. They act as staging grounds and centres of operation. Having proper infrastructure and logistics near your theatre pretty much decides the war.


say what?

Ah, you're right. I admit my defeat on this one. Although this could be eliminated by dealing with the home base to let your own crew in and no one else.

Negotiate with the surrounding countries to let your ground force pass through. They won't let you? Brute force time if it's needed. That + air support + airborne squad should do the trick. Secure an enemy air base if possible. There, you can land more troops. About fitting modern army to aircraft carrier armada, it's just about incorporating tons of LSD carrying troops and armored vehicles into the armada. And you say strategist's nightmare? They HAVE to think about a way to do it. They did that on D-DAY. And i see no reason why modern-day tactician who were trained to perform in situation like that can't do the trick.

Eh? I thought US. Navy have this command ship for situations like that. And the hospital ship. And the logistic ship.et al. And they're far from improper as far as i know.

I say overseas bases are overkill, but i'm not just saying, i handed out a viable alternative.

And again, pardon my trait of over-simplifying and over-imagining things. I think i made all the necessary points, you too made all the necessary points.

I still believe my alternative is doable.

Host countries don't always play well with us when we need them too. Look at Turkey during the initial invasion of Iraq. They restricted our use of airspace and movement within the country at the very beginning of the invasion.

Still a fine idea though

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1281531.html

The person that really got this ball rolling (officially) is Harry Truman who conceived the Truman Doctrine.


Now you're just being stubborn. I already argued about the importance of time, and negotiations take time, and using brute force definitely takes time. Not only is it economic like gibbous has mentioned, it's also much more practical.

The fact that you wrote the issue of how we're wasting tax dollars is a conflicting point in your argument as well if you're endorsing ACs rather than military bases.


Who is to say they won't act on their own even with an AC?