Why does the US spend so much on military?

[slapass]

This is something that has always bothered me. Why does the US spend so much on military? The US spends 39% of the world total. 4.4% of our GDP. Saudi Arabia our ally spends more as a % of GDP. Of the top 15 countries only two are not solid allies (China and Russia).

When I was a kid, I was always told it was to protect our interests abroad. When you look at the EU, Japan, China, etc who are out exporting the US then this starts to seem a bit thin. I wonder how much stronger the US economy would be if we didn't waste money on this endeavor?

Edit - link to Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

[TheFootMan5]

The rulers will tell you it's to protect you and to bring freedom around the world!

It's to control you and to impose their will on whoever they wish

[AllAboutCams]

To tell everyone else what to do?

[slapass]

I suppose I should remove him but then I would have to read this and 500 other posts that twist anything resembling logic into delusional fantasies.

"This message is hidden because TheFootMan5 is on your ignore list."

[Minte]

Originally Posted by slapass

I suppose I should remove him but then I would have to read this and 500 other posts that twist anything resembling logic into delusional fantasies.

"This message is hidden because TheFootMan5 is on your ignore list."

You've made the right choice...trust me on this.

[slapass]

Originally Posted by AllAboutCams

To tell everyone else what to do?

But does it benefit the US (us)? Do we really get the investment back? It would be sad if it was just a power trip thing. China, Germany and Japan spend quite a bit less as a % of GDP then the US and yet have pretty strong economies over the long haul.

On the full list if you sort by % of GDP, anyone spending a lot is a place you would not want to live.

[slapass]

Originally Posted by Minte

You've made the right choice...trust me on this.

Tell me about it.

PS I am still trying on that thing hahah.

[SuckOnThis]

Because military contractors make billions from it which gets passed on to lawmakers.

[NiXXiN]

find out who actually profits and then you will see why.

[Relentless]

Originally Posted by NiXXiN

find out who actually profits and then you will see why.

QFT

The military industrial complex is 25% about defense and 75% about profit these days.
Eisenhower warned the country about that eventuality emphatically, and he was right.

[SilentKnight]

War machine profits aside - on a planet where the antiquated notion of 'fear of God' has broken down - someone has to play the role of policeman.

[CyberHustler]

Bitcoin is the anwer

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by slapass

This is something that has always bothered me. Why does the US spend so much on military? The US spends 39% of the world total. 4.4% of our GDP. Saudi Arabia our ally spends more as a % of GDP. Of the top 15 countries only two are not solid allies (China and Russia).

The United States is one of the largest countries in the world, and size is proportionate to everything. This is why the US had a much larger Coast Guard than the UK - We have much more coastline, and a lot more people in boats off our coasts.

The United States also has more interests in other areas than most countries. For example, the United States has concerns in Asia with China, North Korea, South Korea, and Japan. France does not.

Originally Posted by slapass

When I was a kid, I was always told it was to protect our interests abroad. When you look at the EU, Japan, China, etc who are out exporting the US then this starts to seem a bit thin. I wonder how much stronger the US economy would be if we didn't waste money on this endeavor?

You can look at the EU, Japan, and China all you want - This is not where the current problem is. Imagine if Iraq took over Kuwait and then invaded Saudi Arabia. Suddenly the vast majority of oil coming out of the middle east is supplied by one man who has a twenty year history of starting wars. You fuckers bitch when the price of gas goes up forty cents; Imagine it tripling over night and the effect that would have on the US economy.

How much stronger would the US economy be if we didn't waste time on our military? It would be a lot worse off. Don't look at the military as a "waste" but instead look at the benefits.

A large portion of the US population benefits from the US military. You can start with military personal and their dependents, then civilian contractors. (When I say "civilian contractors" I mean both civilians who work on base, civilian contractors who supply the bases, as well as contractors who build the ships, planes, tanks, weapons, etc etc.) Then factor in the cities and counties that get nearly all of their business from military bases - grocery stores and apartments.

Then factor in the technological aspects. With the US military you can argue we would not have computers, GPS, the Internet - even cell phones.

Then we can argue about education and how the US military has affected education over all in the US. How many people have graduated from a military college, or gone to school on the GI bill? The boom we saw in the 1950s was because of American servicemen returning from Europe, going to college, and then re-entering the workforce as college graduates.

Setting aside all of the advantages of having a large military, the primary reason we have a large military is because of Korea and to a lesser extent, Vietnam. At the close of WWII, just like every other war the US was involved in, we reduced our military to the smallest amount possible under peacetime conditions. We had interests in Europe (The cold war and the constant fear of communism) and we also had interests in Asia (Hawaii, Guam, Japan, Hong Kong, and the constant fear of China) and when war broke out in Korea the US was woefully unprepared. It was impossible to protect our interests in Europe and Asia while trying to fight a war in Korea. We cannot just snap our fingers and increase the size of our military. Thus, to protect our interests we have to have a large and modern military.

[CDSmith]

Americans have built themselves a certain way of life of the past 200 years. Aside from the other obvious reasons for investing in their military they probably mainly just want to protect that way of life.

With all the constant bullcrap going on in the world I can't say I blame them.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by NiXXiN

find out who actually profits and then you will see why.

Bingo. It's big business. One of the biggest there is...and war itself is an ever bigger moneymaker -- for certain people. But we fund it so those assholes can make profits from it.

[arock10]

Why do we need to spend so much on military now when all we do is zoom around with unmanned drones

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by arock10

Why do we need to spend so much on military now when all we do is zoom around with unmanned drones

Because eventually those drones have to land someplace.

You need people to design, build, and maintain those drones. You need a home base to run them out of. That home base needs to be protected. And all of those people need to be feed and need medical care. So now you need to teach people how to cook and how to give medical aid. Then you need to teach people how to supply the base when it's three thousand miles away. Then you need someone to run the base, and then someone to run the communications systems. And so on.

And that's just for drones. We also need ships and planes too.

[Relentless]

Originally Posted by SilentKnight

War machine profits aside - on a planet where the antiquated notion of 'fear of God' has broken down - someone has to play the role of policeman.

You could play policeman for 1/2 what we currently pay. We build obviated weapon systems and prepare for war scenarios that are already 30 years past any possibility of happening... because there is a lot of profit in doing so....

[2012]

we're obviously someone else's "tool" ...

i really liked the "we'll invade Iraq but we'll pay for it with their oil" ...

Americans payed for it, we keep paying for it while a select few benefit

[slapass]

Originally Posted by Rochard

The United States is one of the largest countries in the world, and size is proportionate to everything. This is why the US had a much larger Coast Guard than the UK - We have much more coastline, and a lot more people in boats off our coasts.

The United States also has more interests in other areas than most countries. For example, the United States has concerns in Asia with China, North Korea, South Korea, and Japan. France does not.



You can look at the EU, Japan, and China all you want - This is not where the current problem is. Imagine if Iraq took over Kuwait and then invaded Saudi Arabia. Suddenly the vast majority of oil coming out of the middle east is supplied by one man who has a twenty year history of starting wars. You fuckers bitch when the price of gas goes up forty cents; Imagine it tripling over night and the effect that would have on the US economy.

How much stronger would the US economy be if we didn't waste time on our military? It would be a lot worse off. Don't look at the military as a "waste" but instead look at the benefits.

A large portion of the US population benefits from the US military. You can start with military personal and their dependents, then civilian contractors. (When I say "civilian contractors" I mean both civilians who work on base, civilian contractors who supply the bases, as well as contractors who build the ships, planes, tanks, weapons, etc etc.) Then factor in the cities and counties that get nearly all of their business from military bases - grocery stores and apartments.

Then factor in the technological aspects. With the US military you can argue we would not have computers, GPS, the Internet - even cell phones.

Then we can argue about education and how the US military has affected education over all in the US. How many people have graduated from a military college, or gone to school on the GI bill? The boom we saw in the 1950s was because of American servicemen returning from Europe, going to college, and then re-entering the workforce as college graduates.

Setting aside all of the advantages of having a large military, the primary reason we have a large military is because of Korea and to a lesser extent, Vietnam. At the close of WWII, just like every other war the US was involved in, we reduced our military to the smallest amount possible under peacetime conditions. We had interests in Europe (The cold war and the constant fear of communism) and we also had interests in Asia (Hawaii, Guam, Japan, Hong Kong, and the constant fear of China) and when war broke out in Korea the US was woefully unprepared. It was impossible to protect our interests in Europe and Asia while trying to fight a war in Korea. We cannot just snap our fingers and increase the size of our military. Thus, to protect our interests we have to have a large and modern military.

What was our interest in Korea? Afghanistan? Iraq? Seriously if we had stayed home would anything be different? Oil was 20/barrel in 2000 and now it is 90-100/barrel. Did the USA collapse? We just started our own oil production. Hong Kong? Japan? China? We are over there for what reason? China loves the US. They are sucking us dry the old fashion way. We are not going to fight them or vice versa.

If we did not have a huge national debt and such high spending on the military, we might offer free college like they do in many parts of the EU.

[slapass]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Because eventually those drones have to land someplace.

You need people to design, build, and maintain those drones. You need a home base to run them out of. That home base needs to be protected. And all of those people need to be feed and need medical care. So now you need to teach people how to cook and how to give medical aid. Then you need to teach people how to supply the base when it's three thousand miles away. Then you need someone to run the base, and then someone to run the communications systems. And so on.

And that's just for drones. We also need ships and planes too.

And if we didn;t do this? Seriously, what did we gain recently by droning those guys in Pakistan or the Saudi Arabian peninsula?

[crockett]

Originally Posted by slapass

This is something that has always bothered me. Why does the US spend so much on military? The US spends 39% of the world total. 4.4% of our GDP. Saudi Arabia our ally spends more as a % of GDP. Of the top 15 countries only two are not solid allies (China and Russia).

When I was a kid, I was always told it was to protect our interests abroad. When you look at the EU, Japan, China, etc who are out exporting the US then this starts to seem a bit thin. I wonder how much stronger the US economy would be if we didn't waste money on this endeavor?

Edit - link to Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

It's called Industrial Military Complex. During WW2 we contracted normal industrial giants, like Ford & GM to retool their factories to produce tanks and military equipment.

Ford for example actually built B-24 Liberators in their retooled factories. Chrysler Corporation built Sherman Tanks in their factories. Ect..Ect.. While the Auto manufactures could easily go back to producing for the civilians, these other companies found it much harder. (you can only sell so many airplanes to non military customers)

This created lots of profits & jobs, for these companies and a few such as Lockheed, Bell, Boeing.. ect..ect realized there was shitload of money to be made by selling mostly to the Military and working govt contracts and they couldn't grow in the civilian market as easily as they could, by focusing on govt contracts.

They lobbied, and lobbied and lobbied and added with paranoia of a growing commie threat.. well we ended up with large sections of the economy based around providing equipment for the military which turns full circle and becomes self feeding monster so to speak.

As long as there is a perceived threat.. that is.

Watch the documentary "why we fight".. It's pretty good and covers a lot of this.

[BFT3K]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=4IlIwYIO9Sg

[slapass]

Originally Posted by crockett

Watch the documentary "why we fight".. It's pretty good and covers a lot of this.

Going to check it out.

This seems to be the issue - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...democrats.html

[seeandsee]

to get oil and cheap laibor

[DBS.US]

I would like to know why we buy imported firearms for our military?

[slapass]

Originally Posted by DBS.US

I would like to know why we buy imported firearms for our military?

If they are better. We are the largest seller of military stuff in the world so lots of countries must buy shit.

[Fat Panda]

its called small penis syndrome

[sting_ray]

If it didn't then somebody else would.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by slapass

Going to check it out.

This seems to be the issue - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...democrats.html

Yes that's covered in the documentary as well. These govt contractors have gone through great pains to make sure their operations are spread all across the United States in every state they can manage to do something in.

What this does is essentially secures their future business prospects because it means any sort of defense spending cuts affect every damn state in the union in one way or another because jobs will be lost.

No Senator is going to vote to lose jobs in his own state if he wants to get re-elected, doesn't matter what side of the aisle he sits on.


If you like that documentary, the same guys released one on the war on drugs and the privatization of the prison system. It's also well worth the watch and shows how the war on drugs is essentially feeding the same kind of deal as what goes on with defense spending. It's called "the house I live in".

http://www.thehouseilivein.org/

[Socks]

You're mistaking "we" (the civilian population) with "we" (the wealthy who control the politicians). The second we is doing just fine spending 5% of your GDP on military. In fact it's one of the only things you still manufacture, that can't be outsourced.

They don't care about you, or the country. Just raise their taxes and see how fast they flee. That's how patriotic they are. While they expect a mother to give her 4 sons to fight for their interests...

It's just a money machine, powered by civilians, but not for civilians.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by SAC

its called small penis syndrome

It's called big business profits.

[CDSmith]

What's interesting is people from certain other countries of the world who criticize the USA and their military and their "meddling" etc, right up until there's a major catastrophic crisis in their country. Then their officials are on CNN crying "Why does the USA not HELP us?!" "Please send your military to SAVE us!" "Why you no send help? Do you not CARE?"

I've witnessed this phenomenon several times over the years and each time I do it never fails to amaze me.

[vegasbobby]

The US has been in over 100 wars from 1776 to today. With out the US making sure they can win these wars.

You would be speaking German, Russian or Japanese.

[slapass]

Originally Posted by vegasbobby

The US has been in over 100 wars from 1776 to today. With out the US making sure they can win these wars.

You would be speaking German, Russian or Japanese.

The Russian threat was gone in 1990 or so. Since then???

[crockett]

Originally Posted by slapass

The Russian threat was gone in 1990 or so. Since then???

China, Iran, Nk.. then the never ending war on terror.. WoT is much better than evil empires because it can go on forever long after the Saddam's of the world have been buried or the death of former states, such as the USSR.

It's all a profit machine, that feeds in itself and it's not just the US.. We are just the biggest player. All the other major players around the world are involved as well. France, UK, China, Russia.. ect..ect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_in...arms_exporters

All of them supply weapon systems to other countries.

[Paul]

To protect the petrodollar at all cost

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by slapass

What was our interest in Korea?

Lots of reasons.

At the end of WW2, Korea was occupied by Japan and when Japan surrendered to the US suddenly the US (and it's Allies) were in control of a large amount of territory. Eventually Korea was split in half, with the Southern half being a country the US set up, and the Northern half controlled by communists. Eventually North Korea attacked South Korea, the country we had created - our friends and allies - was about to be over run.

The US could have sat back and said "You are on your own". All of Korea would have been communist, and being as the US had followed a course of appeasement in Asia... China would have clearly taken Hong Kong, the Philippines, and eventually Japan. Sounds unlikely now, but not right after WW2 where Japan had expanded from Japan proper all the way across the Pacific to attack the US.

Originally Posted by slapass

Afghanistan?

I don't see how this is even a discussion. It's simple - A terrorist organization supported, financed, and encouraged by the government of Afghanistan attacked the United States causing billions of dollars in damage and killing thousands of Americans. When the United States went to Afghanistan and demanded assistance in arresting the people who did this to the US, Afghanistan said "Not interested". Thus, the United States attacked.

Originally Posted by slapass

Iraq?

Iraq - after a ten year war with Iran - attacked one of our allies and threatened not only Saudi Arabia (who begged for US support), but also the oil supply of the middle east. Thus we attacked Iraq.

Originally Posted by slapass

Seriously if we had stayed home would anything be different?

Maybe.

Maybe Korea would be all communist now and China would have taken over all of Asia including Japan, The Philippines, and perhaps Hawaii.

Maybe if we allowed Afghanistan to be a base for terrorists they would have continued to attack the US, and every day we would have bombs going off in major cities. That would make what just happened in Boston seem minor.

Maybe if we allowed Iraq to take Kuwait, they would have attacked Saudi Arabia too. I believe the primary reasons Iraq attacked Kuwait was because Iraq owed Kuwait billions (loans for the Iraq - Iran war) AND wanted their oil. Iraq also owed Saudi Arabia a large amount of money too, more than Iraq could ever repay. Maybe we if did nothing the entire Middle East would be run by Saddam - And imagine how that could affect the US economy. Perhaps you don't remember the gas lines in the 1970s, how you could only by gas on certain days, IF you could find gas, and IF you could afford it.

Originally Posted by slapass

If we did not have a huge national debt and such high spending on the military, we might offer free college like they do in many parts of the EU.

Sure thing. We wouldn't have a huge national debt and we could send everyone to college. Only... Unemployment would be higher than we could ever imagine, technology would be set back forty years, and we wouldn't have to worry about sending anyone to college because we would all be speaking Chinese.

At least we wouldn't have to worry about oil because so few of us would have cars.

[GrantMercury]

Originally Posted by NiXXiN

find out who actually profits and then you will see why.

Yup. It's one way they steal from us. We all put hard-earned coins into the kitty - and the huge defense corporations scoop it up. It's the perfect way to fleece America, because we're all so goddamned afraid of everything (reinforced by the corporate media), that the last thing we'd want to cut would be "defense."

Just look at the wailing and gnashing of teeth when anyone suggests doing so.

We're idiots.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by GrantMercury

Yup. It's one way they steal from us. We all put hard-earned coins into the kitty - and the huge defense corporations scoop it up. It's the perfect way to fleece America, because we're all so goddamned afraid of everything (reinforced by the corporate media), that the last thing we'd want to cut would be "defense."

Just look at the wailing and gnashing of teeth when anyone suggests doing so.

We're idiots.

Great, fine, let's stop all military spending. We can argue that the US military helped to move technology forward during the cold way - in huge ways - but honestly, we don't need this now. US industry - as well as other countries - can easily take over this role if they haven't already.

But then... All that money we spend on the military, it's dependents, the tens of millions of civilian contractors.... All of them would be unemployed. We'll save billions, hundreds of billions, but then we'll have tens of millions unemployed.

I'm cool with this really. Let's get rid of the Air Force, the Amry, and the Navy. Let's close nearly all of our bases across the world. The US Marines can handle the rest.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by slapass

This is something that has always bothered me. Why does the US spend so much on military? The US spends 39% of the world total. 4.4% of our GDP. Saudi Arabia our ally spends more as a % of GDP. Of the top 15 countries only two are not solid allies (China and Russia).

When I was a kid, I was always told it was to protect our interests abroad. When you look at the EU, Japan, China, etc who are out exporting the US then this starts to seem a bit thin. I wonder how much stronger the US economy would be if we didn't waste money on this endeavor?

Edit - link to Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

though out history the military has always been used to protect the resources of the 'ruling class,' either King, Queen or President, such as trade routes, natural resources and human resources. the world today is no different. think of the United States as an Industrial Military Complex. when you view all nations in this light, the actions of nations are much more clear. the difference today is the left wing media trying to convince everyone that all nations are equal and all people are equal AND that everyone deserves the same slice of pie... which is completely untrue...

[Joshua G]

the answer, in a sentence, is that military spending is holy & untouchable.

same with social security/medicare. the politics are such that it is impossible to cut the program. if you do, you are "opposed" to national security, or to seniors. so we now have a situation where the pentagon is incapable of leaving some places, like okinowa, germany, & korea, wars that were over 2 generations ago.

as with all issues in DC it comes back to special interests leeching the public dime, & a political class for sale to those special interests. & nothing the common man can do about it cept talk about bitcoins.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by JoshGirls Josh

the answer, in a sentence, is that military spending is holy & untouchable.

same with social security/medicare. the politics are such that it is impossible to cut the program. if you do, you are "opposed" to national security, or to seniors. so we now have a situation where the pentagon is incapable of leaving some places, like okinowa, germany, & korea, wars that were over 2 generations ago.

as with all issues in DC it comes back to special interests leeching the public dime, & a political class for sale to those special interests. & nothing the common man can do about it cept talk about bitcoins.

We can leave Japan and Germany. South Korea not so much, but only because of North Korea. It would take a lot from our leaders to do.

But we do need bases around the world. We need at least one in every region - Europe, Middle East, Asia. Naval Air Stations - bases that can handle ships and planes, as well as regular infantry units. They should be islands - Like Accession island. This way we can have a military base in each area, while avoiding issues with the local population like we have time and time again in Japan. If we want to be social and what not, send a ship to their port for a week.

One can only imagine how much money closing these bases would save.

[Joshua G]

Originally Posted by Rochard

We can leave Japan and Germany.

the point however, is that we dont leave japan & germany.

even you can't justify why we are still defending the US from 1941 japan or germany. but find a defense lobbyist selling night-vision binoculars & they will give you quite a story about how our national interest is protected by our troops in okinowa.

i personally agree with the Paul family. that 2 oceans & 2 allies on our borders provides more then ample national security & 80% of our defense spending is needless. one day we read how the sequesters gonna kill the troops. next day the pentagons gonna spend new billions on more missiles sitting in alaska to "protect" us from the north korean child-king.

[dyna mo]

cuts are happening, via the automatic sequestration, ~$40 billion this 1st year. what's $40b? that's = ~7% of the military budget, let's start there.

Department of Defense officials told state lieutenant governors Thursday to plan for possible base closures and cutbacks in civilian work forces as sequestration budget cuts begin affecting every state.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2926629.html

[Joshua G]

http://www.armytimes.com/article/201...efense-program

In a testy exchange on Capitol Hill on Thursday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel was forced to defend the Pentagon?s decision to approve $380 million to fund the Medium Extended Air Defense System through the remainder of this fiscal year, even though the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act prohibited funding for the program.

A joint venture between the U.S., Italy and Germany, the MEADS program has developed slowly and has drawn the ire of lawmakers, especially after the Army announced two years ago that once its current obligations to its allies ran out at the end of 2013, it would walk away from the unfinished program while harvesting what technologies it could.

Pressed by Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., during a House Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday, Hagel said, ?I?m not here to defend MEADS,? but ?according to our office of general counsel, I asked for legal advice on this, and they told me that we?re obligated to finish that contract.?

Shuster shot back that ?I respectfully think you need to get some new lawyers,? and that ?it is foolish for us to be spending almost $400 million on a system that nobody is going to procure.?

?Taxpayers shouldn?t have to keep paying for a failed weapons program that our troops will never use,? Ayotte said in an April 10 statement. ?There is near unanimous support in the Senate for cutting funding for the ?missile to nowhere,? and the legislation I?m introducing will better support our troops,? she wrote.

this is just to illustrate how hard it is for the pentagon to cut 400 million in spending on a missile program they are not even going to purchase.

[PornoStar69]

Listen to Robert Welch of the John Birch Society on Youtube talking about an insiders plan to destroy America

[GrantMercury]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Great, fine, let's stop all military spending. We can argue that the US military helped to move technology forward during the cold way - in huge ways - but honestly, we don't need this now. US industry - as well as other countries - can easily take over this role if they haven't already.

But then... All that money we spend on the military, it's dependents, the tens of millions of civilian contractors.... All of them would be unemployed. We'll save billions, hundreds of billions, but then we'll have tens of millions unemployed.

I'm cool with this really. Let's get rid of the Air Force, the Amry, and the Navy. Let's close nearly all of our bases across the world. The US Marines can handle the rest.

Well, of course we can't stop it all. We need a strong military. But our level of military spending is just insane.

And I agree 100% that it could effect the workforce / economy adversely, so it would have to be a careful, gradual reduction.

We have so much $$$ in America, but so much of it is wasted.

[GrantMercury]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

cuts are happening, via the automatic sequestration, ~$40 billion this 1st year. what's $40b? that's = ~7% of the military budget, let's start there.

Department of Defense officials told state lieutenant governors Thursday to plan for possible base closures and cutbacks in civilian work forces as sequestration budget cuts begin affecting every state.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2926629.html

True. I was amazed that the sequester effected the military.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by JoshGirls Josh

the point however, is that we dont leave japan & germany.

even you can't justify why we are still defending the US from 1941 japan or germany. but find a defense lobbyist selling night-vision binoculars & they will give you quite a story about how our national interest is protected by our troops in okinowa.

We can justify. (Keep in mind here I'm not agreeing with this, just giving you the reasons why.)

We aren't defending the US from Japan or Germany. We have bases in Japan because we need bases in Asia, mostly because of North Korea but also in the past because of China.

With Germany (Really Europe, being as the US has multiple bases in Europe), it's partially because of our involvement in NATO, as well as we need a forward base in Europe. However, I personally see no reason why we cannot close most of these - do we need three bases in Italy?

Originally Posted by JoshGirls Josh

i personally agree with the Paul family. that 2 oceans & 2 allies on our borders provides more then ample national security & 80% of our defense spending is needless. one day we read how the sequesters gonna kill the troops. next day the pentagons gonna spend new billions on more missiles sitting in alaska to "protect" us from the north korean child-king.

But that doesn't provide us with "ample national security". We were attacked on 9/11 and our oceans and borders didn't protect us. At the same time we also need to have the ability to reach out and bitch smack one when required - such as Afghanistan. We have a large military not only to protect our country, but also to have the ability to deploy anywhere quickly... As well as to "project force" in an area.