Should USA have bases overseas?
0
gibbous wrote...
psst, PD, you're misquoting me there.gibbous wrote...
A) whether these bases are the most economic solution 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).
Nup. I'm not saying you agree with me on this matter. I'm just using this very specific example you gave for the overall argument that military bases are more practical than AC, not the topic argument of should US have bases overseas.
0
Have you also taken into consideration the disaster relief that the US is also known for? When there was the Tsunami tragedy that happened in 2005, the US armed forces were the first to help out victims and provide medical care. If a US base were thousands of miles away people will die. I've have done my fair share of traveling from Asia to the US and I know that there's no way in hell that an air supply aircraft will go to Asia faster than 13 hours.
0
gibbous wrote...
Sorry to insist, but: Yes you are.
Ah, sorry 'bout that. I thought maybe you thought I was accusing you of agreeing with something that you didn't. Fixed, and sorry again... D:
0
Reasons why an aircraft carrier as a base would never work.
We have 11. Well that's about all on that.
Oh yeah, limited capacity of aircraft, limited size of aircraft, limited supplies for aircraft, the need to supply the boats which will be impossible without a port preferably near an airbase which would need to be protected on the ground, so we need a ground base.
Limited troops for combat, even with a fleet. Remember D-Day was controlled from a base in Britain, not a boat. Furthermore, and this is important, Marines ARE NOT Army. They have different focuses and different uses, never mind the army is bigger.
Furthermore, Helicopters, especially those moving slow and are heavy due to supplies, are far more vulnerable to enemy attacks. The supply line is the weakest point in the whole war. Never mind they'd have to fly across the Atlantic ocean to get to this side of the world. Or we'd need them stationed in a nearby base...
Finally we have several Thousand nukes. Love it or hate it, we're important, a target no matter what we do, and we have to be involved to protect ourselves.
China was once the most powerful Empire on Earth. They then decided to isolate themselves from the rest of the world. Europe used to be the backwater hicklands of the Eastern Hemisphere. But they actively seeked out other nations for trade of goods and ideas. Guess who caught up, surpassed and turned Earth into their colonies? Europe. Or for another example read up on the US's opening up of Japan's ports in the 1800's. My point is isolation NEVER works.
We have 11. Well that's about all on that.
Oh yeah, limited capacity of aircraft, limited size of aircraft, limited supplies for aircraft, the need to supply the boats which will be impossible without a port preferably near an airbase which would need to be protected on the ground, so we need a ground base.
Limited troops for combat, even with a fleet. Remember D-Day was controlled from a base in Britain, not a boat. Furthermore, and this is important, Marines ARE NOT Army. They have different focuses and different uses, never mind the army is bigger.
Furthermore, Helicopters, especially those moving slow and are heavy due to supplies, are far more vulnerable to enemy attacks. The supply line is the weakest point in the whole war. Never mind they'd have to fly across the Atlantic ocean to get to this side of the world. Or we'd need them stationed in a nearby base...
Finally we have several Thousand nukes. Love it or hate it, we're important, a target no matter what we do, and we have to be involved to protect ourselves.
China was once the most powerful Empire on Earth. They then decided to isolate themselves from the rest of the world. Europe used to be the backwater hicklands of the Eastern Hemisphere. But they actively seeked out other nations for trade of goods and ideas. Guess who caught up, surpassed and turned Earth into their colonies? Europe. Or for another example read up on the US's opening up of Japan's ports in the 1800's. My point is isolation NEVER works.
0
General Cow wrote...
Finally we have several Thousand nukes. Love it or hate it, we're important, a target no matter what we do, and we have to be involved to protect ourselves.The several thousand nukes really aren't the driving force behind the U.S.' clout. Russia has even more warheads, and guaranteed first-strike capability due to their warheads having overwhelmingly many more kill vehicles.
However, the U.S. vastly supercede Russia in importance, because a) they have the economic power to keep a large and relatively modern non-nuclear force up and running b) they're the world's largest economy c) without the "Black Hole USA" the entire global economy would collapse.
America's military engagements are not about protecting itself, they are about securing U.S. interests. One may like this or not, but that's what it all boils down to. The blather about "protection" is just rhetorical dress-up for the sheeple electorate.
General Cow wrote...
China was once the most powerful Empire on Earth. They then decided to isolate themselves from the rest of the world. Europe used to be the backwater hicklands of the Eastern Hemisphere. But they actively seeked out other nations for trade of goods and ideas. Guess who caught up, surpassed and turned Earth into their colonies? Europe. Or for another example read up on the US's opening up of Japan's ports in the 1800's. My point is isolation NEVER works.Then your point is misguided, as China was at (one of) its prime(s) when it was most isolationist. The hyper-isolationist policy of hai jin/æµ·ç¦ was implemented during the middle Ming Dynasty, one of the golden ages of the Chinese Empire.
0
PersonDude wrote...
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
One of the former presidents made it a principal of the United states to be the law enforcement of the western Hemisphere.The person that really got this ball rolling (officially) is Harry Truman who conceived the Truman Doctrine.
That's what I was looking for, The Truman Doctrine. Thank you PD for finally ending my curiosity.
Due to actions of Truman and others we have the mentality that America should police the world. That we should be the ones who lead the world to democracy and freedom. Which isn't exactly a popular idea outside of the "leading" country.
0
I think air bases and hospitals are good so that we can give our soldiers aid whenever they need it.
0
I personally see no reason why America should dump its stuff on other nation's soil. I did not read every thing that had been discussed here but I have skim through it, and all I see was the the discussion how it would defend other nation from attack, but the main issue of this was why does America feels the obligation to protect lands that are not ours? Even to the point of placing our own soldiers to their land by claiming to protecting them.
An example, I set up a large guardlight on top of my house on the reason of guarding against crimes in the neighborhood, but I can also easily beam that light to any of my neighbor's house and spy on them, Lakeview Terrace anybody? Is simply not right.
It has been my longest agitation that America simply assumes the position of "Police of the World" and take actions in other nation's policy. Do not throw me those global protection excuses, note that America is one of the largest supplier of arms to nations in South Africa and Middle East. Know that, the amount America made for selling arms in a week equals to the total donation that a homeless charity received in eight years (specific source unknown, but the movie "Lord of War" does have some at the end of the movie).
If a nation is in war, let them settle down themselves. Chances are American have little to no understanding of the country's history to stand by either side of the party. Like Vietnam, and Korea.
We don't like our neighbors stick in to our family issues, so let Uncle Sam get out of other nation's ass.
An example, I set up a large guardlight on top of my house on the reason of guarding against crimes in the neighborhood, but I can also easily beam that light to any of my neighbor's house and spy on them, Lakeview Terrace anybody? Is simply not right.
It has been my longest agitation that America simply assumes the position of "Police of the World" and take actions in other nation's policy. Do not throw me those global protection excuses, note that America is one of the largest supplier of arms to nations in South Africa and Middle East. Know that, the amount America made for selling arms in a week equals to the total donation that a homeless charity received in eight years (specific source unknown, but the movie "Lord of War" does have some at the end of the movie).
If a nation is in war, let them settle down themselves. Chances are American have little to no understanding of the country's history to stand by either side of the party. Like Vietnam, and Korea.
We don't like our neighbors stick in to our family issues, so let Uncle Sam get out of other nation's ass.
0
Twobacks wrote...
I personally see no reason why America should dump its stuff on other nation's soil. I did not read every thing that had been discussed here but I have skim through it, and all I see was the the discussion how it would defend other nation from attack, but the main issue of this was why does America feels the obligation to protect lands that are not ours? Even to the point of placing our own soldiers to their land by claiming to protecting them.This is true, but back in the day, the real reason (at least for the public) for placing troops in other countries was to make sure communism would not spread. Though there are probably countries that could use our help, it is still outdated and we should pull out as you suggest.
Twobacks wrote...
If a nation is in war, let them settle down themselves. Chances are American have little to no understanding of the country's history to stand by either side of the party. Like Vietnam, and Korea.Just to let you know... Korea was a success.
initialdick wrote...
And it also seems like they feel always threatened by terrorists..'Cause we are threatened by terrorists?
0
If a country wants the US to not have a base on their soil all they have to do is tell the US government. One example that I know of is the former Subic Bay Navel Base, in 1991, the Philippine government decided not to ratify the treaty with the US, that allowed it's Navy to be based there.
So if there is a country with a US military base stationed there they can kick them out if they wanted to.
So if there is a country with a US military base stationed there they can kick them out if they wanted to.
0
Oversea bases is very useful in combat sense no matter what.
That part of land have immediate intel and is face to face with people in the surrounding lands. And can be used as focal point for troops to converge at.
And by being simply present, it can deter bad elements from being too public or force them far away for bad elements to be of any effect to surrounding population.
Heck as an american tourist, you probably can go to those oversea base when all hell breaks loose for safety. People have taken american tourists as hostages to make demands against usa before, oversea bases can act as immediate falcon punch to sad panda terrorists.
Aircraft carriers is fine and all but it requires to be recalled to drydock for maintenance and refuelling and such.
Also Nuclear Powered aircraft carriers is something one don't want to risk. It uses freaking nuclear technology for crying out loud. It must be escorted to some degree.
If you still don't understand the value of oversea base, play an Civilization game, it will teach you the value of one very immensely.
That part of land have immediate intel and is face to face with people in the surrounding lands. And can be used as focal point for troops to converge at.
And by being simply present, it can deter bad elements from being too public or force them far away for bad elements to be of any effect to surrounding population.
Heck as an american tourist, you probably can go to those oversea base when all hell breaks loose for safety. People have taken american tourists as hostages to make demands against usa before, oversea bases can act as immediate falcon punch to sad panda terrorists.
Aircraft carriers is fine and all but it requires to be recalled to drydock for maintenance and refuelling and such.
Also Nuclear Powered aircraft carriers is something one don't want to risk. It uses freaking nuclear technology for crying out loud. It must be escorted to some degree.
If you still don't understand the value of oversea base, play an Civilization game, it will teach you the value of one very immensely.
0
as a member of the military i think its a double edged sword really. while its good for reassurance that U.S. military support is close a lot of people from other countries dont like it because they feel like we are in their personal bubble not to mention that there are no foreign military bases in the U.S. but it gives me places to go so im all for it lol
0
Jericho Antares
FAKKU Writer
Okay, here's the deal. Every modern war we've taken part in has involved us using fleet ops to cross an ocean. These bases were designed with the goal of having a forward area at any given time. It isn't easy to throw an effective MEU on the shores of any country whenever you want them to, because landings aren't easy in any sense of the word. Its better to have a contingent of personnel on station and to airlift more in as tensions escalate.
Look at it this way: If a war with China broke out at some point in the future, wouldn't you be happy that you had men in Japan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Germany to begin combat operations instead of taking a huge amount of time to make an entire military ready to go underway, and on top of that, to secure clearance from countries to enter their air-space/waters to deploy that force, then establish forward operations, then set everything up, then move out? If we still had our airbases in Japan at the time, we'd be laying down the hurt non-stop while other forces moved in right quick. Deploying an entire military to one point in the world is a lot easier for everyone when someone is already there. You skip everything and go straight to what you came there for.
EDIT: And no military bases are state-side because our mainland hasn't been touched since the War of 1812. It'd be a waste for other countries to establish bases here in the first place. Who's gonna invade us, Canada and Mexico?
Look at it this way: If a war with China broke out at some point in the future, wouldn't you be happy that you had men in Japan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Germany to begin combat operations instead of taking a huge amount of time to make an entire military ready to go underway, and on top of that, to secure clearance from countries to enter their air-space/waters to deploy that force, then establish forward operations, then set everything up, then move out? If we still had our airbases in Japan at the time, we'd be laying down the hurt non-stop while other forces moved in right quick. Deploying an entire military to one point in the world is a lot easier for everyone when someone is already there. You skip everything and go straight to what you came there for.
EDIT: And no military bases are state-side because our mainland hasn't been touched since the War of 1812. It'd be a waste for other countries to establish bases here in the first place. Who's gonna invade us, Canada and Mexico?