Opinion: American military should get out of Japan & Europe

Yeah, Tom, I don't really care. They're free to rewrite the constitution if they like. That was relevant when we made it, but not really anymore. If they refuse to do so, then it's their own fault.

Just to drop in, I remember sometime back that Japan was planning to remove said clause and allow them to wield official military again, altough just so they can actuly participate in international operations and send their ship/troops to area. Right now they really can't do that to certain extent. Dunno if anythign ever came from that.

We love you too, sweetie.

One of the objections that ex-defence minister Liam Fox raised to pan-European military integration was that such an undertaking would be redundant while NATO still exists. I agree with him, but only in that NATO as an obsolete Cold War relic should be torn down and replaced by something more thoroughly European.

Fine with me. NATO is, in fact, an obsolete relic of the last Cold War.

That, and the idea that the US and the EU will be on the same side for the inevitable new Cold War is rather in doubt, methinks.

-citation needed-

Considering the rise of pan-European supranationalism, and how the EU is increasingly divergent in opinion from the US, I'd say it's not much of a stretch.

Well, it is starting to look like it will be a three way Battle Royale between The New Russia + United Europe, the English speaking nations (biggest players being Australia, United States, and India, with Canada remaining somewhat nuetral and England trying to get Europe and America to get along), and China + their middle eastern and african business alliances. Which is a good thing - competition is healthy, and its a lot less likely to turn hot if it has more than one democracy involved. Really, not even sure if you could call it a cold WAR, more like a friendly but intense rivalry between nations.

That's a Cold War, buddy. There is no such thing as "friendly competition" on that scale. We have a rising Russian Federation, a coalescing European Union, a beaten-but-not-quite-dead United States, and the looming People's Republic of China.

Twice as many players as last time, leading to more complicated diplomacy and an even larger bill afterward. Might as well start preparing now by cutting down on foreign obligations to countries that really don't need our presence, nor necessarily are liable to like us in the long run.

Like I said, its going to be a three-way contest, with Russia and continental Europe acting as a single entity. Main reason? Unless someone finds an alternative to fossil fuels, Russia has all of Western Europe by the short and curlies, so long as they control the flow of oil into that nation. At the same time, Russia would benefit greatly from a mutual understanding with Western Europe - it isn't like their motivation behind the Iron Curtain ever went away in the first place even if the Soviet Union did, but this time around its going to be more like a Silk Love Drape.

Besides, you already see the pieces being set into motion, if you are paying attention. For instance, Russia and the European space agency both recently vowed to team up and be the first to land a mission on Mars. It's like panda diplomacy for China, but with rockets.

Anyways, let's keep this topic to America, Japan, and Europe. I'll start another thread for discussing cold war II.

Y'all need to study up on your foreign militaries a bit more...

The JSDF is awesome and very well trained/equipped. Their numbers are relatively few for a first world military, but it is an adequate defensive force. We train with the JSDF Navy in a yearly exercise down here, I've seen them work.

South Korea isn't resting on its laurels either, I've got lots of friends deployed there who have nothing but good things to say about their forces.

We would rapestomp North Korea if they tried to come over the border. The plan with Kunsan and Osan air bases acting as a hammer and anvil for the DMZ is a good one. The fact that there's so many trenchlines and tank traps means slow moving for North Korea, they wouldn't be able to blitzkrieg past the hammer and anvil.

Long story short, there's a choice we have to make on this issue. The bases in foreign countries are there specifically for force projection, they are the conduits we use to get our people to other countries when we move troops there. The United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Germany, Turkey, and Kyrgyzstan are the lifeline for logistics going to and from Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not a simple matter of just getting rid of them to cut costs and carrying on as normal. Without those bases, we lose our projection capabilities in the Middle East. This isn't about if anyone wants us in the middle east or not, the whole point is a give and take, if we get rid of those bases, it means we aren't planning to go anywhere in the middle east or africa with our military anytime soon. Losing our Japanese bases means losing the ability to project into Southeast Asia as well.

I suppose the last battle plans/statistics I saw for North Korea and South Korea and a hypothetical conflict between them was from the early 2000s.

We really shouldn't be planning on going into Africa, the Middle East, or Southeast Asia. We could always sell the bases to the countries they're in with an agreement that we can use them if we need to, too. Ideally, we won't need them for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars either, or at least, not for much longer.

Considering the size of the new carriers we're building, maybe we won't need bases soon. :P

More seriously, I agree with Barkey. It is a choice we must make and soon.

If we MUST have force projection, the bases should then at least only be leased for small limited periods of time so that once its no longer required, we don't have to pay.

As for North Korea...anyone think there won't be a population left over there when it finally falls? Ghost nation...

To be honest, I'd rather we kept at least a few bases so we could have that mobility. We could stand to close a few, however.

I like the joint bases we have in the UK. They own them, and we both share the operational costs and manpower issues. We should be doing that with many more NATO countries.

Well, the whole object is that we shouldn't be doing unilateral foreign adventures to police other countries we have no business interfering with. If we're going on a foreign adventure, it should be a UN-backed one, so we shouldn't, at that point, need to worry about force projection, because another country helping on the mission would, theoretically, help us out.

Selling the bases and working out sharing deals sounds like the best bet.

I only want to get rid of whats no longer necessary. Like Diego Garcia, for instance. And for what we still have, that the base deals aren't permanent and are beneficial to the host politically, economically, and in other ways.

^^

For me the issue is money.

As it is for me. The so-called "force projection" and world police mentality is costing us fortunes upon fortunes we could use for more productive things. A superpower that thinks the world is still like it was for the Romans in the age of nuclear weapons is only setting itself up to fail. We're sacrificing political capital when much more could be achieved with diplomacy and economics.

Such as? It could be argued the reason why the world seems so peaceful right now is precisely the US as world police situation. Do you think half the disputes in the world would remain as restrained as they are if we weren't out there? Korea, India-Pakistan, the Balkans, Russia vs former Soviet republics, China vs Taiwan to name a few sure as hell wouldn't be what they are today without the US on the stage. Instead, It Got Worse only begins to say enough.

edited 23rd Oct '11 6:09:54 PM by MajorTom

Like dealing with the disgusting crime and poverty rates in this country, fixing the schools and infrastructure, and bringing the economy out of the gutter.

Most of the conflicts you listed aren't even our business. Why does the world get to expect us to babysit it? We didn't sign up for that, and it's not our job to play police man because the world can't grow up and act collectively like adults when it comes to their problem. Hell, that we can't see that means we can't grow up, too, and leave the world to its own issues.

India-Pakistan and Korea are nuclear wars waiting to happen. Millions of lives lost in even a limited nuclear exchange is unacceptable. Nobody else has the power to intervene and the few who might have no interest in resolving them.

Except if we're always babying them they'll never learn better. Isn't that the logic we use to justify a government hands-off approach at home? "They can't know until they've failed." Hell, it's true, too. Europe hasn't had any major wars, to my knowledge, since World War Two.

Is it unacceptable? Yes. So is American involvement in such a conflict. Our involvement only prolongs the suffering.

With great power comes great responsibility. If America stops putting so much money into its military and ceases to be a global military power, then it can kick back and let someone else worry about that sort of thing.

edited 23rd Oct '11 6:25:56 PM by RavenWilder

So millions of lives lost in nuclear fire and the spectre of restraint surrounding the use of nuclear weapons removed qualifies as they'll learn better?

^ Like who? You trust the Chinese to stand up for human rights? You trust the Russians to keep the peace?

edited 23rd Oct '11 6:27:42 PM by MajorTom

Wow, never thought I'd see Major Tom being the liberal one in an argument.

Leave your scaremongering at the door. Just because Pakistan is stupid and India wouldn't be able to do anything but retaliate doesn't mean Russia and China will suddenly lose 100 IQ points a piece and decide nukes are A-OK now.

You can't say you don't trust government to fuck around with its own people, but you do trust it to fuck around with other countries' people. That doesn't make sense. Either government is competent and can be trusted with things, or it isn't and it can't. Take your pick, but you can't have both.