Voltaire X
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 551
- Reaction score
- 206
- Location
- New York, New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING
Right now the US military has:
90,000+ troops in Afghanistan
50,000+ troops in Germany
35,000+ troops in Japan
28,000+ troops in South Korea
15,000+ troops in Kuwait
10,000+ troops in Italy
9,000+ troops in the UK
etc.
These troops are deployed for a variety of reasons. Most of these countries are in strategic locations (West Germany was our frontline against the Soviets), but the Cold War is long over. I think our deployments are quite excessive. In fact, I think that at least 90% of these soldiers should be brought home. I'm curious what other users think about this.
Also the source for these numbers, from the Department of Defense itself, is here:
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst1112.pdf
There is no "Completely remove all troops from foreign locations" option.
Anyone care to venture a guess as to what may happen the instant we completely remove our military presence in South Korea.
Also, are you implying by this poll that there are no sovereign nations who ask for/welcome a US presence within their borders?:shrug:
Anyone care to venture a guess as to what may happen the instant we completely remove our military presence in South Korea.
Also, are you implying by this poll that there are no sovereign nations who ask for/welcome a US presence within their borders?:shrug:
Nope, I'm not implying that, though it's true in some cases.
Apparently you seem to think that the 687,000 active South Korean military personnel and 8,000,000 reserve personnel won't be able to defend themselves long enough for NATO reinforcements to arrive in the case of a North Korean invasion. How could you think so little of our allies?
Nope, I'm not implying that, though it's true in some cases.
Apparently you seem to think that the 687,000 active South Korean military personnel and 8,000,000 reserve personnel won't be able to defend themselves long enough for NATO reinforcements to arrive in the case of a North Korean invasion. How could you think so little of our allies?
I have two words for you: Maginot Line
The US troops merely serve as human shields in order to deter DPRK from attacking.
The border between NK and SK is a lot smaller than the border between France and Germany/Belgium/Netherlands. And I don't think the US military should be spending billions sitting around waiting for some theoretical attack in a different continent.
You asked a question regarding the capability of our allies of defending themselves......and I answered it. Now you're dragging government appropriation into it. Then you shared your opinion. Good that you have one. We disagree.....that's such a novel thing. None of this hoopla detracts from the fact that on many occasions our allies don't always have the capability to adequately defend themselves......especially against the threat of a nuclear attack.
You know, that's kind of the whole idea behind being "ALLIES".............we support each other in spirit, in trade, and, whether you agree or not.....in national defense. :shrug:
That would make sense, but then why does the US have over 900 bases in our "allied" countries when our allies have 0 bases in the US? It's a totally one sided relationship. I guess we disagree on how well our allies are able to defend themselves against third world countries. Also, I don't see how the 28,000 US troops in South Korea would help in the case of a nuclear attack.
The answer is.....we don't need THEIR help to defend OUR borders; however, often, in the past, our allies HAVE needed OUR help to defend THEIR sovereignty. And, yes, sadly it is often quite a one-sided relationship......that's just the way things are.
Also, regarding SK; it's not that 28,000 US troops could realistically repel the entire NK Army. It's simply that the PRESENCE of US troops there, turns ANY attack on South Korea into, in essence an attack on the USA as well. Does this make sense yet? :shrug:
The answer is.....we don't need THEIR help to defend OUR borders; however, often, in the past, our allies HAVE needed OUR help to defend THEIR sovereignty. And, yes, sadly it is often quite a one-sided relationship......that's just the way things are.
Also, regarding SK; it's not that 28,000 US troops could realistically repel the entire NK Army. It's simply that the PRESENCE of US troops there, turns ANY attack against South Korea into, in essence, an attack against the USA as well. Does this make sense yet? :shrug:
i voted "yes, drastically." it's my opinion that our presence in the world should be a humanitarian one. ideally, when the US enters another country, we should be coming with food, medicine, and technology. it's my hope that we will eventually transition to that kind of foreign policy.
i would not scrap the military. we should maintain a reasonable level of preparedness for a country our size, we should focus much more on honoring our commitment to veterans, and cyberdefense should be given more attention.
Couldn't the same effect be accomplished with 50 soldiers? Why don't they just have a group of about 50 soldiers guard the embassy, and that's it? US troops are still under attack if North Korea decides to invade. Either way NATO will be sending in huge swarms of reinforcements. What difference does the extra 27,950 soldiers make when we're talking about armies made up of millions of soldiers?
Couldn't the same thing be accomplished by making it clear to the leader of NK that SK is an ally, and any attack on them is an attack on us and will be treated as such?
Yes, we need to drastically cut back on our military presence around the world. The cold war has been over for 21 years now. Anyone born during the cold war can now legally purchase alcohol.
We could cut our military spending in half and still have the most powerful military, and the most expensive, on Earth. Isn't that enough? Why must we impose our will on the rest of the world by military force?
In the past, when our leaders have adopted this line of thinking, it usually ended up that a major military conflict erupted and our military forces were so "downsized" that we could not quickly take action. Go all the way back to the ill-prepared Union Army at the outbreak of the US Civil War, WWI, and yes, even at the outbreak of WWII. I could go on, but I've got to go take a shower.
We tried that in Vietnam. Kennedy called them "Advisors". It just doesn't have the same effect. Can't we please just learn from the mistakes of the past use common sense and move on.
Our educational system is obviously failing........does anyone learn history of the non-politically correct variety any longer? *sighs*
Doesn't have the same effect, and you know it. The Allies tried that with regards to China, Belgium, and the Netherlands during WWII. Nothing can really take the place of the presence of an ACTUAL allied fighting force of meaningful size in these situations. Stop nit-picking and let's move on.
This is honestly a really stupid post. The US was the most powerful country in the world during WWI and WWII. We got involved in WWI late because we didn't WANT to get involved... until the Lusitania sank. Once we did get involved, we quickly broke the terrible stalemate on the western front. As for WWII, we fought a two front war and still managed to kick ass. Again, we didn't get involved until we were attacked.
And the civil war really isn't relevant here at all, that was 150 years ago. Times have changed, especially regarding warfare...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?