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.
And Bamford, I am curious, when U.S. bases in England close, what kinds of things are they used for? Two of the bases my family was stationed at in the U.S. that later closed are still heavily used for other things now, and in one case at least, the local economy didn't suffer much because of that.
Ex Military Air Force make good industrial estates, storage areas, housing estates, prisons, whilst some continue as airfields or even become airports and there are numerous other such uses. The large US base at Upper Heyford in Oxfordshire which closed in the 1990's is set to have a lot of new houses built on it
Some US Bases went on to become British Military bases such as Brize Norton in Oxfordshire which is now a vast RAF base and Woodbridge in Suffolk which is now a British Army Base.
Others such as Greenham Common have simply reverted back to common land and people walk their dogs there, whilst some smaller bases were simply demolished and returned to agricultural land.
Ex Military Air Force make good industrial estates, storage areas, housing estates, prisons, whilst some continue as airfields or even become airports and there are numerous other such uses. The large US base at Upper Heyford in Oxfordshire which closed in the 1990's is set to have a lot of new houses built on it
Some US Bases went on to become British Military bases such as Brize Norton in Oxfordshire which is now a vast RAF base and Woodbridge in Suffolk which is now a British Army Base.
Others such as Greenham Common have simply reverted back to common land and people walk their dogs there, whilst some smaller bases were simply demolished and returned to agricultural land.
Very interesting! I will be back in the UK hopefully next year for my citizenship ceremony -- my mom is British so I will be getting UK citizenship through her (dad was a Yank!). I hope to have time to visit a base or two -- it has been really fascinating reading all the info you provided!
As a former US Soldier who was stationed in Europe and worked in England quite a bit, I'm always happy when I hear of strategic base closings. As a taxpayer I think that we waste a ton of money at these bases and that money would be much better served by funding domestic programs, not the pensions of foreign nationals.
I agree.
The US spends a lot of money supporting other nations, hidden in our DOD budget.
The US spends a lot of money supporting other nations, hidden in our DOD budget.
There are no US Soldiers based in Britain and virtually no US Navy. Indeed the bases in Britain are more for Americas own benefit that any one elses, and are mainly intelligence bases with two operational USAF bases with runways.
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 Alconbury 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 and Welford is at Mildenhall, a base mainly 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 or indeed is the is USAF 353nd Special Operations Group (SOG) which could also be moving to either Turkey or back to the US itself and the Guardian Angels 56th Rescue Squadron.
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.
The truth being that it's going to be unacceptable to move US Military assets out of the UK and indeed Europe and at the same time justify maintaining unaccountable spy bases. Indeed Britain and other European countries already have such bases such as GCHQ in Gloucestershire who work with the US and other Agencies throughout the world, meaning that if the military bases go, the NSA/NRA bases and other such US facilities would naturally be expected to follow them.
It also should be noted that the US has never supported a strong European military or indeed a European Military HQ outside of NATO. Furthermore given the current extent of US Military Cuts it would be hypocritical for the US to point the finger at Europe in terms of cuts to defence spending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Spectator
Washington often says it is displeased by europe’s defence draw-down. Doubtless this is so. It is also the case that Washington has persistently opposed efforts to build a common, independent, european defence capability. There are respectable reasons for this American view.
Nevertheless just as it is reasonable to complain about european “free-riders” so it is reasonable to point out that the US has generally been happier with weak european allies within NATO than stronger european allies outwith (beyond) NATO.
I suspect the only way you could make european governments – whatever the economic climate – increase defence spending would be if Washington decided it was going to give up its leadership of the western world and retire from hegemony.
Since Washington has no desire to do anything of the sort (and no-one will believe any bluff designed to persuade you Washington wants to get out of the game) europe’s defence posture may not be especially noble but it is at least rational.
It also shouldn't be forgotten that Europe has by and large backed the US both in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there have been a considerable amount of European Casualties and horrendous injuries, whilst the cost has also been substantial at a time of economic austerity. Which begs the question are the Europeans really the free loaders some Americans make us out to be, and indeed other than Europe who else in the world is going to support US policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISN
The lack of emphasis now placed on Europe by the U.S. must confound many European partners, who have ranked as some of America’s staunchest allies since 9/11. After devoting so much blood and treasure to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade, usually at great political cost at home, many wonder what it was all for. At the end of the day, it is not just Europe that loses out from an aloof American European policy. There are many reasons why the U.S. needs to stay engaged with the Continent.
Through NATO, some of America’s closest military partnerships have been tried and tested. When critics in France and Germany were complaining that the U.S. was “going it alone” in Iraq, 23 European countries, 17 of which were also members of NATO, sent troops to Iraq. The troop contribution to Iraq of countries such as Poland, Italy and Georgia measured in the thousands. The UK contributed 46,000 troops for the initial part of the invasion. Many European countries deployed troops to Iraq at great political cost.
European troops have even a greater presence in Afghanistan. Of the 50 nations, besides the United States, that have contributed 45,000 forces to the International Security Assistance Force, approximately 80 percent of these troops (37 nations) are European. Together, these 37 nations have contributed nearly a third of the military personnel serving in Afghanistan. It is true that there have been some shortcomings, such as major European powers not doing all they can in Afghanistan or disagreeing outright with the U.S. over Iraq in 2003. But on the whole, no other region of the world has been willing to back U.S. foreign policy objectives in the same way as Europe.
The US has always vehemently opposed any European plans for separate European Military Headquarters to NATO. A separate HQ being needed in order to coordinate European Defence and any potential operations.
In terms of paying for our defence, the accusation that Europeans are somehow freeloaders is ridiculous, as other than war torn nations or military dictatorships most countries do not spend a massive amount on defence with the exception of the US at 4.2% and Russia at 4.5%. European Union Defence spending averages out at 1.7% of GDP, the same as Australia, and more than Canada and indeed most countries across the world. The European Union actually accounts for nearly a quarter of all global military expenditure or $275 Billion USD, and given that the US accounts for half of all military expenditure, it does pose the question if NATO accounts for three quarters of all military expenditure who is this mighty enemy we are seeking to defend ourselves from because last time I looked the Chinese spent little more than most European countries at 2% GDP Defence Expenditure.
In terms of Russia it's not a mighty super power any more, it's country of 143 million with a population set to decline to 100 million by the end of the century and which actually spends $90 Billion on Defence (4.5% GDP) which is less than Britain and France combined at $120 Billion and far less than the $275 Billion spent by the 507 million people who inhabit the EU.
As for US Forces in Europe I wouldn't get carried away, there are know no US Army Tanks in Europe anymore, there are a few US Army Brigades (30,000 US troops) in Europe mainly in Germany many in logistical and medical roles supporting US operations globally, a handful of front line air bases again supporting US operations globally and a Naval Support Facility in Italy which mainly supports the US Sixth Fleet.
Hardly a massive force and the US is now about to begin a new round of cuts in Europe, consolidating some bases and possible closing others such as Morón Air Base in Spain with bases in the UK such as Lakenheath and Molesworth also rumoured to be closed in the next round of US Cuts. . The main US presence now being in Asia as opposed to Europe.
Contrast the US presence in Europe with the EU one
Quote:
Originally Posted by EU Institute of Strategic Studies Report
A 2009 Report by the EU Institute of Strategic Studies Report showed that the number of Main Battle Tanks held by the members of the EU showed the collectively we had 9,800 tanks,7,951 Armoured Fighting Vehicles and 22,844 Armoured Personnel Carriers and over 2 million Regular Service Personnel and even greater numbers of reserve forces.
Whilst Britain and France are now working on together on future nuclear technology, UAV's, missiles and a raft of other hi-tech military collaborations, as well as setting up a joint military forces and there is now the real prospect of a European Defence HQ.
Whilst since the 2010 Anglo French Defence Treaty both Britain and France have worked very closely together on Defence and Security. Whilst both have the Aster/SAMP/T Anti Ballistic Missile System and France has no US Military bases on it's soil. Whist a European Military Command would improve interoperability and specialisation in terms of the smart defence concept.
If you mean there are no (Army) bases, correct. If you really mean there are no Soldiers, incorrect.
There are very few US soldiers in the UK, and the remaining USAF bases are shedding lots of service personnel, whilst the future of bases such as Lakenheath is far from certain.
I spent a large portion of my Active Duty US Navy career homeported in the UK.
For a long time that was a critical location for our Naval forces to deploy from.
Too bad they shut it down.
Holy Loch closed in the early 1990's and the USN Command in London was transferred to Naples, whilst the base at St Mawgan in Cornwall was also closed. So there is not much of a US Navy presence at all now.
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.
