Foreign Military Installations 5 replies

Please wait...

Andron Taps Forum Mod

Faktrl is Best Pony

261,474 XP

10th September 2007

4 Uploads

21,739 Posts

1,754 Threads

#1 1 year ago

And no I'm not talking about U.S. bases on foreign soil I mean the other way around.  This is really more of a question than a suggestion: why haven't the U.S. or U.K. ever entertained the idea of a foreign military holding home territory?  We have bases in Germany, England, Kosovo, Italy, and South Korea.  I'm wondering if this is just because the U.S. is really that chauvinistic or paranoid about an allied country's military having some space or if there's legitimately no good reason to have one.

This is just one answer I happened to spot on Quora:

Spoiler: Show
Because there have only been two superpowers this side of World War II:  the United States and the USSR.  The US remains the only military superpower (a nation that can project its power, significantly, anywhere on the planet).  The only other nation that might be able to afford a sizable military contingent overseas is China.  Not only does China not want that kind of footprint, but it's not reasonable to expect the US to accept a Chinese military base on her territory. That leaves the likes of Germany and Japan, who don't have any overseas bases (though Japan keeps a very small military force in Djibouti to combat piracy); France and the UK who could possibly keep a small force in the US, but not only are they not welcome to do so by the US, neither nation wants to foot such a bill.  The current global arrangement has the US footing a significant portion of the cost of security for certain nations (Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait).  There would be no reason for them to open up a military base in the US when the US would end up having to pay for it (though, notably, Saudi Arabia could afford it).  The US does allow foreign military personnel on American bases that are designated for coordination purposes and training purposes.  This especially applies to special operations training and flight training. 

Thoughts?


"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.



Lindale Forum Mod

Mister Angry Rules Guy

240,766 XP

1st February 2010

0 Uploads

23,399 Posts

2 Threads

#2 1 year ago

It is because America is the world's vigilante.

The reason they are allowed to get away with this is because no other nation has the sheer size, or finances to stop them.


filesnation_by_lindale_ff-da1kplo.png



Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,291 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,141 Posts

5 Threads

#3 1 year ago

The U.S. has an interest in force projection, especially following on from the Cold War, and has the friends to make it happen. Europe doesn't really have the same problem at the moment. Russia and China, to an extent, do have the same sort of interest in force projection, but there are diplomatic difficulties with them having many external military bases.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

216,814 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

19,996 Posts

6 Threads

#4 1 year ago

There is no need. Bases can be used for logistics, but Europe doesn't really want to project power into North America. The other purposes is to use them as forward bases for faster deployment. Since we are not too worried about Mexico we have our bases in eastern European countries instead.

One purpose of US bases in Europe is to make use of the higher defense spending in the US. European states can get away with very low defense budgets as we have the big spender on our side.




Serio VIP Member

The Dane

149,846 XP

11th November 2006

3 Uploads

12,506 Posts

37 Threads

#5 1 year ago

As has already been noted, there's no need for foreign military installations in the US. It's not a strategically important location, as we're not in conflict with South America or Mexico, and certainly not Canada. The US, on the other hand, are in conflict with the middle-east and Russia, and Europe offers a good springboard for impromptu invasions of either. That's why you have the United States increasing deployment to Poland - they're getting ready for potential Russian aggression or incursions.




Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,261 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#6 1 year ago

Indeed so, it doesn't make sense to waste money on a forward base if there is no risk of a potential battle in a thousand kilometers.. And even that was the case I don't think the US would be too keen on semi permenant European bases on US soil unless there was such a massive build up of militairy power by the enemy that the US alone would feel it had insufficient men and material on their own territory...  But perhaps we could persuade Trump to let us station some troops in Alaska to watch the Russians from there like the US does so from Europa...  Would be a fair deal right? :p