America's overseas bases - Page 4 - Politics and Economics

JayTeeMe · 02-05-2012, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A_C_Slater

The Grand Macro Strategy of the United States military is to maintain the worlds most dominate Navy and at the same time prevent any other Nation from building a large Navy. He who controls the Oceans controls the world. And it's not because you can launch an attack anywhere you want, it's because you have the ability to shut down shipping lanes. The United States can literally shut down all trade by Sea from any Nation.

It is of course much more expensive to trade by airplane than ship. Part of the apparently irrational wars in Iraq and Afghanistan actually serve a very useful purpose above and beyond the oil. The great threat Sadaam Hussein posed was his dream to reunite the Middle East into a modern Ottoman Empire. A unified Middle East would eventually have the resources to build a massive Navy and challenge U.S. naval dominance.

The biggest threat currently is Russia. I expect U.S. macro policy to switch to containing Russian expansion. Russia's goal is to regain the lost territories of the Soviet Union. If this seems absurd remember that not too long ago they invaded Georgia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war

In the next 20 years expect Russian to continue probing their former satellite territories and the U.S. doing everything they can to contain. Both sides will never even consider using nukes. But the U.S has a "lesser nuke" option that the Russians lack, shutting down their shipping lanes.

To learn more you can read this book about the topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Next_100_Years

Can't Russian anti-ship ballistic missiles sink every ship we have anywhere in the world almost trivially easily? And as of right now ships have no defenses against ballistic missiles.

cres · 02-05-2012, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Haywood

This is the crux, yet it is always glossed over. Exactly what interests of "ours" are being protected? What can you come up with?

I'll wager the interests are narrow, private ones, not of benefit to the country as a whole.

I would add it allows the US to dispute the opinions of others, at will. I am not talking about atrocities, but merely differences of opinion or policy. All the while using the loudest braggadocio about freedom and democracy. The interesting part about that is from outside its the activity of a tyrannical dictator.

Look at the 2012 campaign, not about improvement to society but a scorched earth policy. History has records of what happens to those empires.

Bill Haywood · 02-05-2012, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mayo

Hey, I live and work on one of those overseas bases. . . . The main military benefit that I can see is that it puts us in position to have a global presence whenever we need to. When the Libyan air war was going on, we already had two F-15 squadrons based here that can easily fly missions to Libya and back.

For this global presence, we have a military budget close to half of the rest of the world put together. Add to that the periodic slaughter of our young people, how is that worth it? Loads of countries do just fine without a military archipelago.

The powerful benefit from the empire, common people pay the price.

Mayo · 02-05-2012, 01:12 PM

I don't think I'll respond to a post that uses the words "periodic slaughter of our young people," as I doubt that you're really all that interested in having an honest debate with me about anything.

esad · 02-05-2012, 01:15 PM

Don't think it's been mentioned but the US bases in Japan are there due to treaty:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_...ates_and_Japan

Quote:

the United States is obliged to defend Japan in close cooperation with the Japan Self-Defense Forces for maritime defense, ballistic missile defense, domestic air control, communications security (COMSEC), and disaster response operations.

Plus the Japanese government does pay for this (of course it probably costs more then this to maintain those bases.)

Quote:

The Japanese government paid ¥217 billion (US$ 2.0 billion) in 2007 as annual host-nation support called Omoiyari Yosan (思いやり予算?, sympathy budget or compassion budget).

I'm not really for these worldwide bases but it does beg the question: Why doesn't the US get some of these host nations to pay to defend them? It would greatly defer the costs.

cres · 02-05-2012, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esad

Don't think it's been mentioned but the US bases in Japan are there due to treaty:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_...ates_and_Japan

Plus the Japanese government does pay for this (of course it probably costs more then this to maintain those bases.)

I'm not really for these worldwide bases but it does beg the question: Why doesn't the US get some of these host nations to pay to defend them? It would greatly defer the costs.

Quote:

I like to fire people, when they don't do as they are told to.

would be an interesting conversation. You, fellas with all the guns, leave now.

Bill Haywood · 02-05-2012, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mayo

I don't think I'll respond to a post that uses the words "periodic slaughter of our young people," as I doubt that you're really all that interested in having an honest debate with me about anything.

Don't be chicken. "Honest" in this context usually means "agrees with me." Change my phrase to "periodic sacrifice of our young people" and show you can carry an argument.

Esad says:

Quote:

Why doesn't the US get some of these host nations to pay to defend them? It would greatly defer the costs.

Because that's not the deal. The arrangement is: we guarantee your security, even if you are the head chopping House of Saud, in return, we get bases to extend our full spectrum dominance.

Mayo · 02-05-2012, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Haywood

Don't be chicken.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Haywood

"Honest" in this context usually means "agrees with me." Change my phrase to "periodic sacrifice of our young people" and show you can carry an argument.

Sorry. I've done my fair share of arguing with people who don't agree with me on this forum. I'm not going to engage someone who seems to regard me as (at best) cannon fodder.

Tiltmonkey2 · 02-05-2012, 03:17 PM

Having bases globally is just wasting money and trying to establish a global empire which we don't have anyway. You can't be a conqueror and a nice guy at the same time. Our attempt at policing the world has failed miserably and its time for us to bring all our resources back to America.

Vael · 02-05-2012, 03:20 PM

But then China, Russia, Iran or North Korea will instantly fill that vacuum of power and reign global terror on everyone!

A_C_Slater · 02-05-2012, 04:00 PM

None of you seem to understand that the world is just a giant game of Risk.

CENTRAL COMMAND DEEP IN THE PENTAGON:

Lt. Sanderson: Gen. Worthington our domination of the world is almost complete, but it seems some hippie liberal douches on the 2+2 forums seem to think that wouldn't be very nice or something and they think we should just give up and go home.

Gen. Worthington: Sweet Mother of God Sanderson! By all means let us call back the fleet to appease their delicate sensibilities. We wouldn't want them to think that the United States is acting like a big meanie to all the sweeter and more innocent Nations of the world. From now on we shall preach the doctrine of non-violence and free trade like everyone else.

Bill Haywood · 02-05-2012, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mayo

I'm not going to engage someone who seems to regard me as (at best) cannon fodder.

No, not to convince me, just like I'm not going to convince you. Debate for the audience, because you have more to say than platitudes.