70 Years of US Bases in UK & Europe: Time to Stay or Time To Go. (soldiers, controversial)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many European countries enjoy the peace and security and are fat with access to strategic resources because of "The American World Policeman" and those (like the UK) who do the dirty work.
I don't think 30,000 US Troops, a couple of air bases, a naval support facility in Italy and spy bases can be constituted as defending Europe. Most of these bases are not needed in terms of European Defence and in terns of the US role throughout the world that is for Americans to decide and not Europeans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
After all, who do you think really benefits from Middle Eastern oil? Certainly not the United States, who gets the vast majority of its oil from elsewhere, and is soon to be oil independent.
Hint: Might need to look at what companies and countries received Iraqi oil contracts post-American/UK war mongering.
I recall the reason for attacking Iraq being WMDs and not Oil, and a lot of European countries wanted no part in it, and they turned out to be correct. Whilst in terms of Afghanistan, there is no oil.
I don't think 30,000 US Troops, a couple of air bases, a naval support facility in Italy and spy bases can be constituted as defending Europe. Most of these bases are not needed in terms of European Defence and in terns of the US role throughout the world that is for Americans to decide and not Europeans.
Then let the governments of those respective countries - UK included - ask the US to leave. Has it been done and the US refused?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bamford
I recall the reason for attacking Iraq being WMDs and not Oil, and a lot of European countries wanted no part in it, and they turned out to be correct. Whilst in terms of Afghanistan, there is no oil.
That's not the point. The point is the Euros who railed against the imperialism of the US now enjoy the gravy train benefits of it. I guess it's OK to control a country's resources as long as you don't actually do any of the fighting that gets you access to same.
The Euro-idiots have munitions for 1 week o
of sustained combat. That's because socialism and entitlements has eaten up their budgets.
Except that's patently untrue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by House of Commons - UK Parliament
MUNITIONS
117. On the attack capabilities which performed well, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, Chief of the Air Staff, told us:
As far as we are concerned, the principal four weapons systems that were used all performed to an extremely high level of satisfaction in terms of their capabilities, and well above the predicted level percentage-wise, with very few exceptions. For instance, to talk about Brimstone in particular, 98.3% to 98.7% of the missiles fired went exactly as per the textbook and did exactly what we expected, so the quality of that was extremely high. The same is true, in ratio terms, of all the precision weapons that we dropped—and bear in mind that that is exactly what we require.[134]
118. Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff, told us about the maritime attack capabilities that had performed well:
As far as maritime fires are concerned, the early requirement to use Tomahawk to suppress enemy air defence was proven yet again. Once you have suppressed the air defences, you can project power more comfortably from the air. Naval fires simply using the 4.5 gun, which some people have suggested was not appropriate in this modern era, was proven again in terms of the ability to put fire on the ground where necessary with some considerable precision. We had to work up our standard procedures to be able to do that, to ensure the required precision that was again necessary to guarantee the safety of life.
Not quite a naval fire, but a very important part of the ability to sustain some of the operations was the mine countermeasures vessel capability, which ensured that, when they placed mines, we were able to disable those mines to allow, ultimately, the passage of vessels in and out of Misrata. [...][135]
119. There has been speculation that UK Forces nearly ran out of ammunition, for example, the newer version of the Brimstone missile during the operation, or that there was a stockpile of missiles in Afghanistan awaiting servicing. On 23 September 2011, the Royal United Services Institute raised concerns about supply problems for UK Armed Forces of some types of ammunition during the operation, particularly, Brimstone Missiles. It said:
Brimstone Missiles
Did UK forces nearly run out of ammunition in the Libya operation? It is a claim which has been much discussed in relation to the Brimstone missile. A new variation on this anti-armour missile is the Dual Mode Seeker Brimstone (DMSB) which makes it a laser-guided weapon with a small but very potent charge. But the military only had so many of these upgraded DMSBs, with a stockpile in Afghanistan of Brimstone that had not been used and were due for re-servicing. The supplier, MBDA, was able to increase production of the seeker heads; and other weapons were fired wherever possible. Supply then caught up with demand. But the stock of usable DMSBs was reported to have fallen to single figures at one stage. There is no question of the UK running out of munitions for this operation. Nevertheless, it ran very short of the new variant of the weapon which most suited the chosen tactics.[136]
120. Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton told us:
In the whole area of weapons stockpiling, in the old days, [...] we would end up buying a whole stock of weapons; at the time, you needed to do that, because the production line was going to run from now to then, and stop. In today's world, what we do differently is that we make sure we have access to enough stock to meet what we think are the planning requirements in the early stages, and then we maintain a relationship with industry such that we can reorder weapons as required, when their usage starts to go up. We actually have that as part of our formal strategy and policy, and contracts are in place to do it.
That is exactly what we did here. As we started to use the weapons up, new weapons or converted weapons were tasked to industry to be produced and developed, and they were; they were delivered, and therefore the stockpiles were kept at a level commensurate with our operational requirements. Yes, inevitably, decisions are made on a daily, or shall I say a weekly, basis about whether we send weapons stock to this or that place, depending on where we are operating, to make sure that we keep the balance right and the required stocks in place.[137]
121. Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton further told us that the UK ordered more Brimstones when they realised they were likely to use more.[138] Part of the order included converting some of the standard missiles into "dual mode seeker" Brimstones.
[139] Mr Harvey told us:
Munitions stockpile levels are classified, so I am not going to get drawn into that. We were able to sustain the effort throughout; we did not have any serious worries. [...] It [the system] operated satisfactorily throughout, without undermining what we could do in Libya or Afghanistan.[140]
122. Air Marshal Sir Christopher Harper, UK Military Representative to NATO, re-iterated that, as we discuss in the section on NATO, nations involved in the Alliance shared assets:
[...] this was an alliance operation, in which essentially the sum of the parts come together to deliver the required military effect. Therefore, any limitations suffered by an individual nation are made up for by what other members of the alliance contribute to the campaign. It was pretty widely reported that a lot of the key enablers were provided by the United States and, indeed, the debate has subsequently been opened as to whether European nations need to do more to fill the capability gap in terms of being able to have some of those key enablers for themselves. However, during this campaign, we did not suffer for lack of any particular capability. Indeed, alliance members and in particular the United States bent over backwards to make sure that we were always provided with the minimum capability required to be able to prosecute the mission as successfully as we did.[141]
Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton told us that he was not aware of the UK having any discussions with allies concerning any shortfalls in assets or munitions.[142]
123. We asked Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope if there was any removal of capability from some of the UK ships. He told us that there were no armaments used in the Libya campaign about which the UK had any concern in terms of shortage of stocks.
[143] He further told us:
In deploying ships, we equip them for the mission which they are tasked for. That might be constrained with regard to the equipment placed on the ship. There are areas of risk in the positioning of ships that require us to put more equipment on board them, for instance, operations in the Arabian Gulf, where the threat levels are higher, than if we are going to operate them in the North Atlantic. Some of the vessels used for Libyan operations were not fitted with what one might call the area-specific kit, nor was it required.[144]
124. During our inquiry, we also explored the selection of munitions for individual missions in Libya and the high proportion of precision weapons used by UK Forces which are more expensive compared to the other options or tactics that might have been used.[145] According to a written Parliamentary Answer on 14 September, up to 1 September 2011 "76% of weapons employed were precision guided" which included Dual Mode Seeker Brimstone, Enhanced Paveway II, Paveway IV, Storm Shadow missiles and Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles.[146] We put it to witnesses that other coalition members had used cheaper weapons without inflicting collateral damage or civilian casualties, as a consequence of using those weapons.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, replied:
The other issue would be that, for instance, no other country had Brimstone and its dual-mode capability. The consequence of that is that those aircraft were doing very specific missions. In essence, therefore, what they achieved was unique in the overall scheme. So trying to make any comparison of that against what others were targeting [...] would be rather false unless you use something very simplistic, which is not valid, such as the cost per hour, because the effectiveness is what we are trying to achieve. [...]
[...] if you wanted to know what the cost-effectiveness of doing that was, you would very quickly get to a point where, in some cases, there was only one that could do it.[147]
He added:
[...] you take the assets that were contributed by other nations and you then match the capabilities and weapons that those assets have to the targets that you have to go against. For instance, if we had tried to throw a squadron's worth of F16s' capabilities with 500 lb bombs against some of the targets that you send a Tornado with Storm Shadow in, you could have sent another three squadrons and you would not have achieved anything because it is the combination of the aircraft and the weapon that achieves the effect you want on the ground. So that is why it is not simple to do a quick, straightforward cost-effectiveness comparison between one aircraft and its capabilities and another and its capabilities in this sort of mission.
Whilst in terms of US Bases, we are not the ones paying for them, that's the US Tax payer, whilst people like you sneer at Europe and suggest we are freeloaders, if Americans are so unhappy with the situation I suggest they leave themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
That's not the point. The point is the Euros who railed against the imperialism of the US now enjoy the gravy train benefits of it. I guess it's OK to control a country's resources as long as you don't actually do any of the fighting that gets you access to same.
If Americans think we are enjoying some kind of gravy train then why doesn't the US withdraw it's meager forces, there's nothing stopping you after all.
Why are they still here and who are they defending us from????
I agree that we might just close up shop and let those countries handle their own problems. But there is something to be said for the presence of Uncle Sam sitting quietly, and holding a big stick, to make potential aggressor nations think twice about invading our allies.
We no doubt have treaties signed by our government to provide military defense. We'd need to have those countries agree to signing a new treaty, or revoking the old one.
That's not the point. The point is the Euros who railed against the imperialism of the US now enjoy the gravy train benefits of it. I guess it's OK to control a country's resources as long as you don't actually do any of the fighting that gets you access to same.
The presence of the US military does afford these host countries the opportunity to save billions of taxpayer dollars on national defense.
Look at Canada, they are fat dumb and happy, no worries about anyone coming to cause them harm. Hell, they even refused to help fund the North American missile defense umbrella, because they know we will cover the entire US and Alaska, so they can sit pretty and do nothing at all.
Whilst in terms of US Bases, we are not the ones paying for them, that's the US Tax payer, whilst people like you sneer at Europe and suggest we are freeloaders, if Americans are so unhappy with the situation I suggest they leave themselves.
The question was: HAS the government of the respective countries who have a problem with US presence made a request for the US to leave, and the US refused?
"Considering bringing US bases in the UK to further account" sounds like mealy mouthed doublespeak that will lead nowhere.
Of course IF a country asks us to leave, we always should, like a tenant leaving a landlord's property. The problem is the respective governments never seem to ask. See for example: South Korea, where despite loud protestors, the government knows the security umbrella afforded by US troop presence is the only thing keeping foreign investment satisfied that it is safe to do business in the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bamford
If Americans think we are enjoying some kind of gravy train then why doesn't the US withdraw it's meager forces, there's nothing stopping you after all.
Actually, the local economies of military base towns - be they in America or elsewhere - DO receive a net benefit.
The question was: HAS the government of the respective countries who have a problem with US presence made a request for the US to leave, and the US refused?
"Considering bringing US bases in the UK to further account" sounds like mealy mouthed doublespeak that will lead nowhere.
Of course IF a country asks us to leave, we always should, like a tenant leaving a landlord's property. The problem is the respective governments never seem to ask. See for example: South Korea, where despite loud protestors, the government knows the security umbrella afforded by US troop presence is the only thing keeping foreign investment satisfied that it is safe to do business in the country.
Once again, I am not paying for US Forces in the UK or indeed Europe, so it isn't a massive issue, and British forces will have totally left Germany within a few years and indeed mainland Europe. This will save us money in the long term.
In terms of US forces, I fully support Parliament legislating in order to bring them further under our laws and to scrutinise their actions whilst on British soil.
As for asking you to leave we are not going to under the terms of the current NATO Agreement, although the French left NATO's central command back in the mid 1960's and did tell you to leave, and there have been no American bases in France since.
I do suggest however if you think Europeans are free loaders that Americans go ahead and leave themselves, as I don't see any imminent threat to European security at a time of large scale US Budget cuts and I am perfectly sure Europe could survive without the current US Forces stationed here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
Actually, the local economies of military base towns - be they in America or elsewhere - DO receive a net benefit.
And by the way: There's an old saying about throwing stones whilst (even used British English for ya there) living in glass houses. Ready?:
Apart from a couple of villages in Suffolk, I don't think our economy will be rocked by US Visiting Forces leaving. USVF bases tend to be near quite affluent towns in the first place, and I don't think the economies of Harrogate, Cambridge, Bury St Edmunds or Bambury etc would be crippled if you closed a few bases. Furthermore larger US Bases are very self contained, and have their own supermarkets, food outlets, bars and entertainment facilities.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 03-10-2014 at 11:57 AM..
Reason: reply to deleted post
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
