HOW MANY US MILITARY BASES IN THE WORLD ARE SUFFICIENT? OR PRUDENT?

[AQUAMAN]

From the last accounts, except for the pending Independence of Sudan, there are a total of 195 separate countries in the world at present. The USA now has 761 Military bases throughout the entire world in activity right now, that's calculated at 3.9 per country, for arguments sake, I'll round that off to 4, ok. Does anyone have any opinion as to whether they think this is too many, or too few?  And the related annual costs of such a presence? And for what exactly? No, I'm not talking about US Embassy's  here, but armed and military personnel type bases that house literally thousands of armed military troops ready for deployment and action. Doesn't this burden of cost seem unnecessary? Or is it a must now? Just curious on opinions, thanks.

[Sweater Cows!]

an absolute must.

IMO we need to have as many as possible in as many countries as possible we never know when the political climate will change and if we are to look out for our interests around the world we need to be in many places at once.

[AQUAMAN]

Let's play the devils advocate here for a moment Sheila: how would you like it if Russia had 4 military compounds/bases here in Michigan, ready for any insurgence towards their country by ours? Ready to pounce on Michiganders for anything they deemed inappropriate? Getting the picture?

[XLFD]

Aquaman, does that figure include all the bases in our country?  Do you have a table or map that shows where the bases are? 

Would appreciate either, because it does seem like a high amount to me, and sounds like a place where the USA could perhaps save money by withdrawing from some areas

[Sweater Cows!]

You guys haven't played the board game Risk have you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_%28game%29

It will show why we need bases everywhere.

 

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

Both the game Risk ( I have played) and our archaic foreign policy, are based on the assumption back in the day that you could not lob a missile 3000 miles, and just total out your adversary. While I do believe we can have a positive effect in some countries we have bases in. I Think the theory I have heard that we cause ourselves a quandary of being considered the oppressor, and therefor part of the in others. 

I think this is one of the issues we could find compromise with the Dems on reducing cost of military operations in fact. Many of these countries are fully capable both financially and militarily of handling their own security thank you.

 

[Dave]

I think we need bases in parts of the world that are prone to upheaval/potential trouble spots (like the Korean peninsula or in Okinawa/Japan) or that of strategic importance (like Germany for instance)... not sure how many we actually need though... that would be up for debate.

[AQUAMAN]

Thanks, but guys, this proliferation of bases imho, is totally insane. Why, just the costs alone must be in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually.  761 bases all over the world, I doubt ANY COUNTRY has anything even approaching close to that figure. The only one whom used to have many was GB due to their ownership of so many provinces worldwide. I again ask, how would we as Michiganders like foreign military bases scattered throughout our state with foreign armed soldiers watching us, I know I wouldn't put up with it, and put yourselves in the others shoes here for just a minute. I think we could save our money and get a lot more respect by keeping about 200 bases open, closing all the rest that are unnecessary and wasteful. How many for God's sake is enough already?

[Egads No]

While getting into how benevolent being the UN's right arm is certainly up for debate- one thing I think is not.  These bases are vital for establishing supply chains for things like our aircraft carriers.

 

  One cannot discount the humanitarian value of these behemoths, they are not only floating fortresses but power plants capable of delivering 1/5th the total power used by Zimbabwe in 1998 (around 190MW), they are also a hospital capable of launching a cadre of rescue helicopters, they are also capable of providing food for thousands of non military personnel every day and huge volumes of fresh water.  We send them to nearly all major natural disasters for humanitarian aid, everyone in some way should feel safer with them out at sea- and the only way they can operate reliably as such is with a densely woven supply chain.  Quick response time and flexibility are not only good for war- but peace.  Just one perspective not vocalized yet.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

This could pare down the number of bases from the current number of over 700 number to say 7?? I'd take that as a great compromise position.  http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._military_bases_over...

 

And as for our Nuclear Aircraft carriers they are bases unto themselves with very little land based influence needed for month's at a time. In fact they seldom resupply anywhere but mainland U.S ports.

[Max]

They are all necessary, and in fact there should probably be more to protect and maintain the American Empire.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

???? I found a subject I disagree with Max on?? Or are you being sarcastic?

[XLFD]

Max doesn't strike me as being an imperialist, more a constitutionalist, but neither do some other conservatives I know, who effectively are.  Some would probably be necessary, but...

What of it, Max?  Why are all these bases necessary for the common defense of the American people?  Or were you being facetious?