Why do we have over 100,000 troops in Europe? The russian ground forces are in total shambles. The European nations have a larger population and economy when combined than the US. Let them defend themselves, the cold war is over!! It would take the Russian government a decade or more to even assemble a force that could take back its old satellites, much less invade Europe.
South Korea has five times the population of North Korea and at least 40 times the economy. Can't they defend themselves? China is no longer backing North Korea so don't use that argument. They are happy making lots of money and don't want a conflict.
And of course japan can defend themselves.
The US last year spent 50% of ALL the world's military spending. No wonder when we spend over $100 billion a year defending countries that can defend themselves. We need to just focus on OUR interests. The founding fathers would be ashamed that we have become the world's police.
2007-08-11 08:51:59 · 10 answers · asked by Steve C 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Splendidly put.
I agree with you 100% percent on all but one issue.
Japan.
The reason we're in Japan is because they have no military. The reason they have no military is because we took theirs away after world war II to make sure a military faction never again took control over the country.
And a big reason that Japan has come so far so fast, is because they are able to concentrate their money on their economy without spending much on defense.
If we were to take our troops out of Japan we'd have to make sure they actually could defend themselves first, plus we'd be losing an invaluable position in case we ever have to fight a war anywhere in the pacific or Asia. (ie China, North Korea, etc)
It's a good idea to have a few staging area's around the world where we can set up shop if we have to.
2007-08-11 09:10:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well the problem is that the United States is currently involved in a couple of conflicts in Asia and requires staging areas to keep those efforts supported. The United States has steadily been pulling out of Germany, and relocating to Romania and Bulgaria. The United States has also been slowly pulling out of the Western Pacific. The US no longer has a permanent presence in the Philippines. The countries that currently have permanent US forces within their borders have the advantage of not having to spend the money on their own militaries and can focus more on their civilian population (Germany has managed to be top ranking for military equipment AND civilian technology, especially chemicals and automobiles). South Korea is getting irritated by the US presence and their own technology is far superior to that of North Korea, but their military is far smaller.
2016-05-19 23:24:34 · answer #2 · answered by ocie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Cold War is not over.
China is as dangerous as it has ever been and North Korea is trying to become a nuclear power - and it's an extremely hostile regime.
Japan, as much as I love the Country, may be heading towards a return to martial traditions beginning with the rebuilding of a navy with offensive power.
Since the Russian government murdered Alexander Litvinenko in Britain and been publicly shamed after being found out, Russia has been saber-rattling by flying military aircraft into European airspace - a clear sign of belligerence.
2007-08-11 09:08:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I agree.
Personally, I'd sit our soldiers and tanks and helicopters on the border(s), secure our ports, and defend this nation and let others fend for themselves.
I'd continue participating in the peace corps and have UN troops, but no more American troops on foreign soil unless we are attacked. Had we focused exclusively on Afghanistan Bin Laden would have been killed and the Taliban would be gone and we'd have been home by now.
Instead, we leave the screen door off it's hinges at home and defend other nations capable of self-defense. And what is the UN for if it doesn't take over the serious role of peacekeeping?
2007-08-11 09:05:10 · answer #4 · answered by askthepizzaguy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Japan, to some extent, wasn't allowed to defend themselves which was what made them such a force in the electronics industry- the money they would've spent for their military went into electronics.
Our initial purpose for being there is likely not the same reason why we stay. Get over it.
2007-08-11 09:04:56 · answer #5 · answered by paradigm_thinker 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think its more of strategic positioning to protect american interests rather than them protecting this countries. The U.S provides all of the weapons for the countries they have bases in. Your question should be how much money is the U.S making from supplying europe and the rest of its allies with all this arsenals? They are there to make sure the other countries dont penetrate the arms market.honestly from korea to Philippines to Poland and Mexico its all U.S weapons.
2007-08-11 10:09:07 · answer #6 · answered by qtpie 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Military spending makes money for the people in power, not so much the politicians, though some of them are smart enough to be in on it, but the real power brokers who own the politicians.
2007-08-15 06:51:22 · answer #7 · answered by i_am_the_fig 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The better to keep our finger on the pulse of the empire. Except that we have no one in the current administration smart enough to read that pulse. Or honest enough to admit there's an empire.
2007-08-11 09:08:12 · answer #8 · answered by gunplumber_462 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
punch in "north korea is dark" and it will give you your answer... My dad served in Korea, I'd like to think that he had a good part in creating what you will see.
2007-08-11 09:03:19 · answer #9 · answered by obsolete professor 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
to train our troops in that environment..to be that much closer when **** hits the fan, to have a place to deploy to, to ward off attacks, to protect our allies
2007-08-11 09:03:25 · answer #10 · answered by LAVADOG 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋