70 Years of US Bases in UK & Europe: Time to Stay or Time To Go. (Putin, Taliban)
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.
Be careful when you throw out those numbers. Building an Ameican soldier's rifle in the US costs the taxpayer about $744. In China, an AK47 or AKMS costs the Chinese goverment about $88 dollars. US companies spend a lot of R&D money to build more effective weapons or to off set the new weapons the threats is building, like China. China steals the techs and code and saves the R&D dollars. The US is decommissioning many of its naval vessels while China is rapidly building more. The US Army is also downsizing again. China's continues to grow.
The pay difference is a major part of the US DoD budget. About 55% of all DoD dollars go to pay and benefits. In China, it is less than 18%. The US is an all volenteer force, the Chinese use conscription.
It is not wise to simply compare the budgets--many other factors here are even more germane.
I recognise that there are differing factors, however it still does not negate the fact that China only spends 2% of it's GDP income on Defence expenditure compared to the 4.4% of GDP spent by the US. Indeed US Defence expenditure is so vast it nearly accounts for half of all global military expenditure. China currently spends $166 billion annually on Defence, compare to the US which spends $682 Billion. So even taking such factors in to consideration, the US still spends a vast amount more on defence than China, and this is reflected in the size of China's Navy and or force wen compared to the US and the fact China does not have a massive overseas Empire of military bases, and China tends to be more focused on national and regional affairs than the US.
The UK works with the US and other countries, but doesn't have unaccountable bases in the US. In terms of troops, there are no regiments or battalions of British soldiers based in the US, they may exercise there but troops from all across NATO exercise in the UK, and we have a lot of joint french military exercises, however neither country has bases in the others country.
In terms of missile defence, both Fylingdales and Menwith Hill which is now the ground receiver and relay station for Space-Based Infrared Satellites (SBIRS), are part of the US Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) programme.
Do you know the reason why? The UK isn't a super power anymore. They can't afford nor do they have the ability to forward deploy any meaningful force overseas. I believe the UK only has a force about the equivalent size of two US Army Brigade Combat Teams in Afghanistan. And those troop numbers are pretty large for the UK...
Do you know the reason why? The UK isn't a super power anymore. They can't afford nor do they have the ability to forward deploy any meaningful force overseas. I believe the UK only has a force about the equivalent size of two US Army Brigade Combat Teams in Afghanistan. And those troop numbers are pretty large for the UK...
The UK had a force of 40,000 in Iraq and 10,000 in Afghanistan.
There are NO US Army troops based in the UK, they are mainly based in Germany, with a Brigade in Italy. The UK is currently withdrawing it's troops from Europe, as there is no longer a credible threat to European Security from the Russians.
In terms of current US operational bases in the UK you have the NSA base at Menwith Hill in Yorkshire which links directly with Fort Meade in Maryland and which listens in for terrorist and other threats against the US.
Whilst the Ballistic Missile Early Warning Base at Flylindales in Yorkshire which is linked to Cheyenne Mountain and the Aerospace Defense Command at Peterson Air Force base in Colarado and gives warning of nuclear attack.
Then we have Croughton in Northamptonshire a relay centre for CIA clandestine and agent communications. It has also now been named in documents leaked by the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden as playing a key support role in embassy-based spying.
Then you have the Joint Analysis Center, which is the Headquarters of USAF Intelligence in Europe at Molesworth in Cambridgeshire, where they reside in bunkers behind three or four layers of razor wire, and then you have Naval Security Group Detachment at Digby in Lincolnshire where cryptography and joint signals are carried out.
The only actual combat units in the UK now that the Americans have moved out of Fairford is at Mildenhall, a base used as a transit and support base for US operations world wide (especially to the middle east) and which houses a fleet of tankers to refuel US Aircraft. It also houses spy planes courtesy of the USAF 95th Reconnaissance Squadron with it's RC-135 and OC-135 Open Skies aircraft.. None of which is essential to UK Defence.
The other base being Lakenheath where a dwindling number of F-15's reside, however just up the road are two RAF base at Marham with Tornado GR4's soon to be replaced by F-35 Lghtnings and Conningsby a major Eurofighter Typhoon base.
There are no US Soldiers based in Britain and very little US Navy. Indeed the bases in Britain are more for Americas own benefit that any one elses, and are mainly intelligence bases.
Lets also not forget tha the NSA pays GCHQ to spy on American Citizens thereby not breaking any laws or the US Constitution. The NSA also spies from bases abroad such as Menwith Hill and taps internet cables under the Atlantic, the UK being a major connection point.
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.
Interesting perspective, but there's another side to that. Consider the relative size of population to support a defense budget and also the singlular desire of the U.S. to protect ITSELF. You ain't protecting Canada and we've never been foolish enough to believe that old canard. The only real threat we've ever faced has been from one nation, care to guess which one?
Uuuh; while I'm aware you were speaking metaphorically; you at least got it correct on one third of your hypothetical; we are happier than you folks.
Try to remember which nation it was who sheltered your Iranian embassy staffers in their private residences at threat of their very lives if caught and also opened its airspace and homes to stranded Americans who would have run out of fuel and fallen out of the skies if left to your government's decisions alone. Now give us ONE example where you've come to the actual aid of Canada or Canadians at risk to yourselves as either a country or individuals.............ever............eve n once............no?
Here's a thought for the day: Has your ability to protect YOURSELVES from demonstrable harm to your citizens either on your own soil or abroad been demonstrated to be all that effective? Protection might not be the best umbrella term to hang your hat on as the last few decades have more than adequately illustrated the contrary.
Your foreign policy and contiguous military protection is centered around your own foreign policy self interests and is never formatted around a charitable consideration toward other countries. To suggest otherwise is simply idiotic. No one's buying that.
Interesting perspective, but there's another side to that. Consider the relative size of population to support a defense budget and also the singlular desire of the U.S. to protect ITSELF. You ain't protecting Canada and we've never been foolish enough to believe that old canard. The only real threat we've ever faced has been from one nation, care to guess which one?
Uuuh; while I'm aware you were speaking metaphorically; you at least got it correct on one third of your hypothetical; we are happier than you folks.
Try to remember which nation it was who sheltered your Iranian embassy staffers in their private residences at threat of their very lives if caught and also opened its airspace and homes to stranded Americans who would have run out of fuel and fallen out of the skies if left to your government's decisions alone. Now give us ONE example where you've come to the actual aid of Canada or Canadians at risk to yourselves as either a country or individuals.............ever............eve n once............no?
Here's a thought for the day: Has your ability to protect YOURSELVES from demonstrable harm to your citizens either on your own soil or abroad been demonstrated to be all that effective? Protection might not be the best umbrella term to hang your hat on as the last few decades have more than adequately illustrated the contrary.
Your foreign policy and contiguous military protection is centered around your own foreign policy self interests and is never formatted around a charitable consideration toward other countries. To suggest otherwise is simply idiotic. No one's buying that.
I am sorry for that gentlemans post. Clearly he does not understand the mutually beneficial relationship the US and Canada have enjoyed. I have had the distinct pleasure to travel to Canada five times in my lifetime, and everytime I was treated warmly and with respect, from both those Canadians who were of French background and those who were more British/Irish anscesty.
I reall the role of the Canandian embassy in Iran with admiration. Your kindness after 9/11 is well known, if fact President Obama sent a note on the 10 year annivesary again thanking and recognizing the gracious way the Canandian government helped stranded US passegers. On the Great Lakes, US Coast Guard personnel have helped in trouble Canadian boats and vice-a-versa. This American is grateful to have Canada as a neighbor.
Interesting perspective, but there's another side to that. Consider the relative size of population to support a defense budget and also the singlular desire of the U.S. to protect ITSELF. You ain't protecting Canada and we've never been foolish enough to believe that old canard. The only real threat we've ever faced has been from one nation, care to guess which one?
Uuuh; while I'm aware you were speaking metaphorically; you at least got it correct on one third of your hypothetical; we are happier than you folks.
Try to remember which nation it was who sheltered your Iranian embassy staffers in their private residences at threat of their very lives if caught and also opened its airspace and homes to stranded Americans who would have run out of fuel and fallen out of the skies if left to your government's decisions alone. Now give us ONE example where you've come to the actual aid of Canada or Canadians at risk to yourselves as either a country or individuals.............ever............eve n once............no?
Here's a thought for the day: Has your ability to protect YOURSELVES from demonstrable harm to your citizens either on your own soil or abroad been demonstrated to be all that effective? Protection might not be the best umbrella term to hang your hat on as the last few decades have more than adequately illustrated the contrary.
Your foreign policy and contiguous military protection is centered around your own foreign policy self interests and is never formatted around a charitable consideration toward other countries. To suggest otherwise is simply idiotic. No one's buying that.
I am torn on this issue, on one hand I support the ability to have forces forward deployed as we never know where trouble might flare up in the future.
On the other hand I would LOVE to see the Euros have to defend themselves and maintain pre-1945 sized armed forces and military capability. Some European countries have cut their military budgets to such an extent that they cannot even afford to conduct live fire training exercises. This is absurd.
It's time for the Euros to slash the cradle to the crave welfare state funding and maintain a respectable level of military force and the corresponding overseas expeditionary capability without needing to rely on the US Air Force to fly them around, the US to provide them with logistics support, etc.
I am torn on this issue, on one hand I support the ability to have forces forward deployed as we never know where trouble might flare up in the future.
On the other hand I would LOVE to see the Euros have to defend themselves and maintain pre-1945 sized armed forces and military capability. Some European countries have cut their military budgets to such an extent that they cannot even afford to conduct live fire training exercises. This is absurd.
It's time for the Euros to slash the cradle to the crave welfare state funding and maintain a respectable level of military force and the corresponding overseas expeditionary capability without needing to rely on the US Air Force to fly them around, the US to provide them with logistics support, etc.
Again, who are we as Americans to tell them what to do with their welfare state?
That's not our business. Nor is it our business whether or not they can adequate defend themselves. Our business is to LEAVE and let them worry about what level of defense they need.
They aren't the ones running around the world meddling in everyone else's affairs...we are. Therefore they don't need a similar military posture as us.
I see no reason why they should end their cradle to grave social system in exchange for this ridiculous American ideal of turning over their budgets to their defense departments. That's ridiculous.
Only Americans think like that. And what has it gotten us? Nothing but grief and failed wars.
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.
.......ever............eve n once............no? 
