Why does America have military bases in other countries?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

In a word: expedience.

Those bases allow for faster deployment and logistical support for any US troops in the area. The bases are usually obtained via treaty agreements or by just straight-out paying the host nation.

As for why other countries don't have bases on US territory... well, it's partly because the US is powerful enough to simply forbid that from happening. But more importantly, what would the point be? For example, why would France want a base in the US? It's not like they have any plans to deploy troops in the area. Same could be said of almost any other nation.

It's due to Treaty. It's also because then, the countries who have said bases:

A) make tons of money from them
B) can count on the US to take military action so they don't have to

Guess which one keeps the bases there most often? (A)

Our military i expecting WW3 to happen at any moment
with that said it's for tactical advantage if shit ever goes down.

Which it won't...
...so yea their basically worthless

I don't know, why do any countries have bases on their allies' soil? The US is hardly the only country that does that.

JWAN:

William Ossiss:
think of the worlds countries as pies. america is a fat kid. he has his fingers in all these pies. he wants them all to himself.

I would suggest picking up a history book not written by bitter communists.
During the cold war its pretty obvious why we had bases all over the world and after the cold war its because we still need to respond to threats quickly and decisively. The US isn't interested in collecting money from the local economies or taking over territory. If someone decides to threaten our nation or its people we tend to like to stomp them out before they can make good on their threats and plenty of other countries do the exact same thing.

Remember the nuclear reactor problems in Japan? Who sent the most troops in under 14 hours to help get APC's with NBC protection to help get people out of the danger zone? What country sent the most medically capable aircraft carriers to Hati to help treat the sick and wounded after the earthquake?
we also have an obligation to NATO and the UN, two organizations that demand we keep forces overseas.

oh yes, let us praise our military. our armed forces are SO great and should be revered.

i bet your one of the people who danced in the street when osama was murdered. oh yeah, THAT'S positive!

america is a fat kid. the mere fact that you cannot see it means your just blind to all the bullshit our glorious government covers you in. have you even READ any history book other than the convoluted one the united states gives you?

did you know that the reason pearl harbor was bombed was because the united states didnt allow any oil to get to japan?

and how a lot of fights the united states are in they start? or how about the fact that a president in a time of war can veto anything he damn well pleases? so it is wise for a president to be a war president. why do you think we have yet to get out of fighting out east? i think you need to take a huge step back and actually look at our government.

Valate:
A combination of WW2 and the resulting cold war. "Oh, we leave you alone for what, 20 years, and you start another huge war? Great, we're just going to occupy everywhere once we and these Russian dudes clean up this mess(which was kind of our fault for shafting Germany at the end of WW1)."

they have bases here in australia too and we were never their enemy. The base i know of is doing top secret stuff.

My working theory is they are experimenting on nuclear weapons that if they blow up, would do so much damage that the american military doesnt want it in their country :P

Paranoia. OBVIOUSLY THE OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE!

Because Canada is full of jerks and those bastards need to be watched...closely. With guns even. Neutral, we don't believe it no sir!

But seriously, mostly because I think our government forgot that the creators of the nation wanted to stay out of other countries businesses. But also because of previous war situations, after beating Japan (with help before you bite my face) I believe we took it upon ourselves to occupy Japan so they had some form of protection, as they're not really allowed to have a large military after that whole WW2 thing.

I think it's because those bases are there to protect the countries from hostile neighbors. The United States doesn't really need help in that aspect. It's also about the density of Countries elsewhere in the World. There really aren't any major threats in our area that we wouldn't be able to manage.

Well of the uk side we have bases in alot of commonwealth countries and as they are spread out around the world we dont need them anywhere else.Alot of them for the USA are due to wars kicking off Germany/japan/south korea etc as other countries have bases there too.

As you will notice that most of the american bases are not in long term "allied" nations

CM156:
Because we are the best country ever, and anyone who isn't is a COMMUNIST!
/sarcasm

I think it's just part of our culture. Also, if this is true, do you have a link to your proof of this? I mean, I haven't seen any, but it is a rather bold claim.

It's not really a bold claim, it's (mostly) common knowledge.

Here you go.

Has to do with spheres of influence and tactical advantages for those regions.

It's my belief in the true motive of the Iraq war.

Besides...the same thing has been going on since the beginning of time. Ghangis Khan left many troops in Afghanistan for cultural and tactical reasons. Greece did the same under Alexander. All expansive nations do this to some degree or title...and make no mistake, though subtle in method; the U.S.A is extremely expansive.

William Ossiss:

JWAN:

William Ossiss:
think of the worlds countries as pies. america is a fat kid. he has his fingers in all these pies. he wants them all to himself.

I would suggest picking up a history book not written by bitter communists.
During the cold war its pretty obvious why we had bases all over the world and after the cold war its because we still need to respond to threats quickly and decisively. The US isn't interested in collecting money from the local economies or taking over territory. If someone decides to threaten our nation or its people we tend to like to stomp them out before they can make good on their threats and plenty of other countries do the exact same thing.

Remember the nuclear reactor problems in Japan? Who sent the most troops in under 14 hours to help get APC's with NBC protection to help get people out of the danger zone? What country sent the most medically capable aircraft carriers to Hati to help treat the sick and wounded after the earthquake?
we also have an obligation to NATO and the UN, two organizations that demand we keep forces overseas.

oh yes, let us praise our military. our armed forces are SO great and should be revered.

i bet your one of the people who danced in the street when osama was murdered. oh yeah, THAT'S positive!

america is a fat kid. the mere fact that you cannot see it means your just blind to all the bullshit our glorious government covers you in. have you even READ any history book other than the convoluted one the united states gives you?

did you know that the reason pearl harbor was bombed was because the united states didnt allow any oil to get to japan?

and how a lot of fights the united states are in they start? or how about the fact that a president in a time of war can veto anything he damn well pleases? so it is wise for a president to be a war president. why do you think we have yet to get out of fighting out east? i think you need to take a huge step back and actually look at our government.

So you would have been in favor of fueling the Japanese war effort? Please go to China and let them know that. Have a nice death.

You do realize a president can veto anything he damn well pleases in peace time too, right? I am sure you are trying to make some point about war time powers, but veto is not one of them. Veto power is there at all times. Vetoes can be overriden, but again that is not a war time thing. War time powers are the creation of things, not the veto.

I would love to take you seriously, but it's pretty obvious you are the one who has never taken a step back and truly understood the US government. You simply love to hate, don't realize the true hows and whys, and then bash people even though you have no real knowledge.

Note: I am not for much of the recent US policy, but your take on the situation is ignorant and hate filled.

I don't know I think it has something to do with the cold war and post WWII. After WWII someone had to keep a eye on the world now that most of Europe, Africa, and Asia have been fucked by two world wars in a short period of time. So the choir was split between the new superpowers to take up the task.

The good old Yankee's wanted dibs on Japan I guess because we were still sore about pearl harbor, then stationed a nice navel base in Italy for strategics reason or perhaps a Admiral convinced Someone to put a base there just because its a nice spot to dock for sailors. Then the Russians take most of Eastern Europe for their whole iron current nonsense and half of Germany with America on the other half leering angerly at those the damn communist.

Then the space race, North Korea, Vietnam, Berlin wall, David Hassle Hoff then tears down that wall or maybe it was Regan. Anyways fast forward it to the Clinton era where the Russkies aren't so powerful anymore America has solider station nearly everywhere but if it where to go to war if another superpower then it would jack up the current deal we have with them and leading to mutual assured destruction, because you know when it comes down to it we all have a little martyr in our heart.

So with Conquering other nations out of style, and all other world powers giving fuck all about imperialism anymore the U.S is left standing with a massive and advanced military that was meant to help stomp out any more crazy dictators out to rule the world and a villain like army behind them, but with no nation powerful enough that wants to take over the world left. We use are impressive military to dick around in oily desserts.

That not say I don't think our troops haven't help here and there. I know most nations don't like us but dammit we will respond and help our allies if the need be.

Well whatever it is, thank God this situation will not last forever. It might last long...but not forever.

When might makes right...welcome to the jungle where morality and humanitarian values are often hardly more than rhetoric and PR.

It's America's version of Imperialism. You know, the thing they can't do for real because they forced post war Europe to give up all it's colonies... They had to do the same, but decided to keep their bases operational to maintain their superiority over their coastlines and the seas they border.

Or something. I don't know.

America aren't the only one, for example, the UK have bases in Germany, Cyprus, and there used to be one in Hong Kong.

It's down sometimes to NATO, sometimes post-war treaties (E.g. Germany), and sometimes alliances.

Because of WW2 and Cold War. Russians did not have the economy to make bases all across the world like US, and disbanded the few they had back when the economy collapsed after the fall of USSR.

The bases came about due to the end of the 2nd world war, and more bases were built during the Cold War. After Nazi Germany was defeated, the US government was concerned that 1) Nazis might rise up again, and 2) That Russia would take over all of Germany and become that much more strategically powerful. Also, the West German government was in NO shape to defend itself at the time and was pretty eager to ask for American help to prevent all of Germany falling to the Russians. With Japan, the US government was concerned that the old pro-war, pro-imperial government might survive and return if they left, and they had just lost thousands of lives defeating that government, so they wanted to keep an eye on things. Then the Korean War happened (who caused it is still a matter of contention, but the North, in the end, invaded the South and the UN forces (most of whom were US forces) pushed the North back and almost defeated the North until China pushed the US back to the original borders. Since the Korean War has never official ended, and since the South was devastated and China had a LOT of troops in North Korea at the time, the US built bases to help the South Koreans defend themselves. In reality, the South doesn't need US help anymore - the north is laughably weak in terms of its conventional forces (although it has a couple of low-yield fission-based nukes now).

The other bases around the world are either the result of war or allowed by the government. The Saudi Government, in particular, is very happy that US bases are there, because they hate, hate, hate, hate, HATE the Iranians and they hated Saddam when he was still kicking. The bases in other arab nations are also there for that reason (You won't believe the venom that Persians and Arabs have for each other. Saudi Arabia has openly declared that if Iran gets Nukes, it will build them too - yep, they hate each other so much they are willing to nuke each other if they go to war). The Bases in Iraq and Afghanistan are there because the US is fighting there. The bases in some central asia countries are there because the US paid money to those governments to allow air bases for transport and logistics.

They really do have bases in another countries?
Huh, that seems a bit hypocritical...
-Israeli citizen

JustJuust:
well... my teacher once told us that a militarily superpower countries need to be able to deploy armies all across the world within a week, so maybe the US military goes by that rule. I understand why SOME countries might want to have the US army around. I know S.Korea has US military stationed there, and that's pretty justifiable I think.

I think that is simply it. Having the largest army in the world is a logistical nightmare, so it helps to have it spread out over a large area (especially in locations marked by past or present conflicts). Imagine how much of a pain in the ass it would have to be to scramble an entire army onto a carrier and sail half-way around the world each time.

Plus those bases were mostly aquired over a long time period. There would be no reason to just abandon them, for they might come in handy later.

cold war relic.
that's pretty much it.

maninahat:
I think that is simply it. Having the largest army in the world is a logistical nightmare, so it helps to have it spread out over a large area (especially in locations marked by past or present conflicts). Imagine how much of a pain in the ass it would have to be to scramble an entire army onto a carrier and sail half-way around the world each time.

The US doesn't have the largest military in the world, it just has the best logistics (in part, due to those overseas bases).

China has a larger military, but no deep water navy, so even if it wanted to there's not much it can do with it, besides staying at home performing lavish re-enactments.

because americans think they are the world protectors or something

Aethren:
Yet no other countries have a military base on American soil?

Always wondered that...

America has a policy of pre-emptive control. We're running a form of new-age imperialism. Seriously, you didn't think we invaded Iraq because Jesus told Bush to, did you? We also run them as a point of control and stability on foreign soil (See the historical airlifts run from the embasies, ect.), and as a staging ground for any hostilities. It's not so much a matter of us coming in and kicking the door down on nice peiceful Korea as it is us leaving a gun under the neigbor's bed, just in case we're in the house when we decide to shoot a robber.

thaluikhain:

maninahat:
I think that is simply it. Having the largest army in the world is a logistical nightmare, so it helps to have it spread out over a large area (especially in locations marked by past or present conflicts). Imagine how much of a pain in the ass it would have to be to scramble an entire army onto a carrier and sail half-way around the world each time.

The US doesn't have the largest military in the world, it just has the best logistics (in part, due to those overseas bases).

China has a larger military, but no deep water navy, so even if it wanted to there's not much it can do with it, besides staying at home performing lavish re-enactments.

America has the most highly funded military. Most of that money, however, does, indeed, go to logistics, and because of this, the military is performing massive worker cullings, quit possibly forming the largest source of job loss in the last decade.

While there aren't any foreign bases on US soil in the strictest sense, there is a foreign military presence on US soil by way of joint operations. As pointed out earlier in this thread, there are joint operations in the country with NORAD (US and Canada) and so on that pretty much make the foreign military operations a part of our own operations. NATO (most of North America and Western Europe) has a lot of the same deal.

Many times, the bases being in use in foreign countries aren't just US only either. The member nations of NATO tend to use all of these installations, we're just the member nation of that organization with the most ability to establish bases. I happen to have friends with family in the Canadian military that make use of American built military bases in European countries since it's easier to pool resources than to construct new bases from scratch. We also hold war games with these friendly nations on each others' soil in rotation. The result is that we often have bases that are not being used just by us but by anyone who is associated with us, including bases here on US soil that, while not strictly a foreign base, are in fact in use by foreign powers.

In fact, one of the cute things about foreign militaries on US soil is that we've gone so far as to let the British use American grounds for testing their nuclear weapons back during the cold war. The Nevada Testing sites were used by the British for MULTIPLE nuclear tests throughout the cold war, some as recent as the mid to late 80s. In fact, there were 9 nuclear tests that I'm aware of from 1983 to 1991 by the UK (for their "Chevaline system") on US soil. That's not just letting them borrow some land, that's letting them blow it up.

So, while we do have a disproportionate number of bases on foreign soil (some of which unwanted by the local populace), it's not entirely unilateral and provides an infrastructure in use by more than just us.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked