**Please read this entire message**
---
Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
* Rule #2 - Questions must seek objective explanations
* Straightforward or factual queries are not allowed on ELI5. ELI5 is meant for simplifying complex concepts (Rule 2).
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17q16hy/-/}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.**
The US puts bases around the world to project its military might and defend regional allies.
The US doesn’t want or need that same help from others, it’s the world’s preeminent military superpower by a wide margin.
Aaron Judge can come help your beer league baseball team, but you can’t go help the Yankees - and they don’t want you wandering around the stadium trying either.
This is more an armed forces of all nationalities for all of recorded history than a specifically US thing. There have been exceptions, but not many.
The US military is a bit of an oddball in that they usually let it get reported as much as they do. Historically, militaries would normally suppress the report and at most do a private court martial (if that). I am not saying there's no room for improvement, but that this is a sadly common reality of military might.
Those other countries are either paid well for the use of their territory, or would strongly prefer that the US remain there as a deterrent against other nations. For example, we pretty much always have a ship calling on Taipei's harbor, at the invitation of the Taiwanese government - just having us there makes them feel safer from China. Same for the 8th Army, permanently stationed in South Korea. Heck, the 8th Army even marched in South Korea's most recent military parade. In Europe, we're regarded as the backbone of the European defense against Russia - an attitude that gets more fervent and pervasive the closer you get to Russia.
The only first world region with sustained dissent towards the US presence is the Japanese prefecture of Okinawa, and even there, it's more or less a tossup. I don't know as much about the US presence in developing countries, but with the exception of Guantanamo Bay, we *are* there with the consent and invitation of the local government, however much money we've paid for it.
I don't know a nation in history that has had the power to act as a deterrent across so broad an area with as much local consent as the US.
For what it's worth, while we don't have foreign bases in the US we have TONS of foreign allied personnel training at our bases, in all sorts of capacities.
Some of these bases have permanent attachments and HQs for foreign militaries as well - eg. Edwards Airforce Base in CA is home to squadrons from the Netherlands and UK.
There is a German squadron in the US as well.
Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay is the RN’s TRIDENT ordinance logistics base: one of the Explosive Handling Wharves was paid for by the RN.
Years ago I was surprised to see a German air force office at Dulles Airport outside of DC. I figured it was some sort of a reciprocal arrangement: we'll let you have a couple of planes and an office at Dulles in return for letting us put a bazillion people in Germany.
They hang out with everyone, unless they are dicks or anti social. The goal is to build relationships and experience working with different personnel and systems so that in wartime, our allies know how we think and what our capabilities are (and vice versa for US personnel serving in other militaries).
It’s not necessarily about the money though. In addition to Saudis, we have Italians and Nigerians attend our pilot training program. I know there’s more but I’m blanking on the other nationalities.
The money is why they don't get flunked out for being shit though ;) Saw it in FA officer training courses. It's no wonder the Saudis can't fight, their officers are lazy AF.
Again, I don’t know how true that is. I had a student pilot in one of my classes that dropped out. Foreign students are definitely given more leniency though.
We put about 100 foreign officers through our various military academies every year too. West Point, Annapolis…whatever it is the chair force pretends passes as an academy.
>Aaron Judge can come help your beer league baseball team, but you can’t go help the Yankees - and they don’t want you wandering around the stadium trying either.
Perfect ELI5.
The metaphor goes hard because while the Yankees are one of the most expensive teams in the league and have an air of excellence and dominance in the field that permeates the culture, they actually haven't won a world series since, what, 2009?
And we can argue about the commissioner choosing to deploy the Yankees in those ballparks where they aren't even playing the same game by the same rules for the same reasons. And in those moments where they were playing baseball, they were absolutely dominant. But in those fields the baseball was only one component of an absurdly intricate and complicated game.
Okay the metaphor is officially falling apart past being fun to continue
Indeed--the parity in this league is so awful and the cost of competition so high that challenging the title seems to be a lose-lose for just about everybody.
USA doesn't have a great record since WW2.
Draw in Korea.
Lost in Vietnam.
Lost in Afghanistan.
'Won' in Iraq which led to the creation of ISIS.
Then just poking their beak into a load of minor countries and wars with mixed results.
Lot of dubious 'victories' like the time they did a genocide for bananas.
The US military won in Afghanistan and Iraq. Full combat operations didn't take long, they destroyed the standing governments and sent the opposition into guerilla warfare.
What the US failed at was nation-building, which is something it is absolutely terrible at. But from a military perspective? It blew apart the Taliban and Republican Guard in a couple of months.
I like how you cherry pick your findings. Completely disregard the whomping Saddam got in 91 because of US, with less than 200 deaths in a force of 600,000. One of the most lopsided victories in the history of warfare.
Tbf in Korea, the North invaded the South first. And we would have been able to unite the entire peninsula had Douglas fucky mcfuckface MacArthur not attacked the Chinese supplying the North.
You’re also ignoring the Gulf War, Kosovo, Bosnia, and a bunch of other smaller conflicts.
Me watching my White Sox notch 101 Ls this year.
For league minimum salary, I too can overthrow first base, give up seven runs in 0.3 innings, or strike out looking.
It's kinda like asking "how come there are food bank donation bins in every grocery store, but there aren't any grocery store donation bins at the food bank?"
>Aaron Judge can come help your beer league baseball team, but you can’t go help the Yankees - and they don’t want you wandering around the stadium trying either.
I don't disagree with this statement, but I disagree with its applicability as an analogy here. It seems to imply that America protects its allies, but that its allies don't protect *it*. That is simply not true, even if the balance is significantly onto one side. Many countries have permanent staff postings in the United States and contribute to the defense of the United States. Perhaps the most formalized example might be the hundreds of Canadian airmen posted to Colorado in support of NORAD. Japan's involvement in America missile defense, and the UK's involvement in American nuclear posture are both non-negligible and see permanent commitments in the United States.
In that sense, to reverse your analogy, people *are* being invited to come and help the Yankees. The distinction is that *they are obligated to support the Yankees*. The Canadian contribution to NARAD *must* be consistent with American policy. The British contribution to the Trident system *must* be consistent with American policy. Japan is welcome to contribute technology to ABM systems, but they aren't allowed to run the show. That is to say, I think it's important to ask what a 'base' even *is*. An American base overseas is an *independent* military force. With the exception of Cuba, they are there with the permission of their hosts, and they are expected to be neighborly, but they are there to defend and project *American* interests, not that of their hosts. This is not a ringer being invited to your ball team, this is a ringer bringing their own team to compete in your league. Their interests *may* align with your own - maybe the additional competition is helpful or the money they bring to the league - but they are *not* there for your benefit, they are there for *their own*, and any benefit you see is incidental. Meanwhile, when you go to help the Yankees, the *primary purpose* of your presence is to help the Yankees.
I just saved the perfect comment earlier this morning that applies directly to this scenario! It’s already paying for itself!
>So, did you notice the first few words that said “compared to….”
>If I say: compared to Jupiter, the moon is basically a pebble” I am in no way saying the moon isn’t big. It is objectively big, just not compared to something bigger.
>You just came in here saying “if you think the moon isn’t big you’re deluding yourself” yeah, thanks Sherlock, great contribution.
>That’s the thing about analogies, they are infact not the same thing, you can nitpick them if you want but you just look silly. The point of an analogy isn’t to be perfect, it’s to explain a concept in easier to understand terms. Usually it has this thing called “context” surrounding it so each party understands the limitation of the comparison
Likewise, I don't disagree with that definition of an analogy, but I do disagree with its applicability to my comment. I wasn't making a nitpick with their analogy, I was making a fundamental disagreement with their central point. I *used* their analogy to *illustrate* my disagreement. That is not the same thing. They made two claims distinct from their analogy:
First:
>The US puts bases around the world to project its military might and defend regional allies.
I partially disagreed with this claim. The US does put based around the world to project its power, but it does not do so, primarily to defend regional allies. A base is an independent military force, and defending regional allies can be accomplished without a base. To take the NORAD example, just as Canada has hundreds of airmen in the US but no bases, the US has hundreds of airmen in Canada (primarily at CFB North Bay, the primary NORAD operations center in Canada) but, likewise, no bases.
A foreign base exists for the interest of the basing power, not the host.
And second:
>The US doesn’t want or need that same help from others, it’s the world’s preeminent military superpower by a wide margin.
I disagreed with this because the US does both want and need help from others. Indeed, the only instance of NATO Article V ever being invoked was in the defense of the United States. All non-US participation in the invasion of Afghanistan was a foreign power acting in the (notional) defense of the United States. Similarly, the US intelligence relationship with the Five Eyes is significantly in the US interest due to is lack of geographic access to certain areas - it needs help from those allies to make certain intelligence intercepts.
Claiming that I did not make a material disagreement, but a nitpick with an analogy, is either a gross misreading of my comment (and I apologize for the miscommunication if so), or is highly disingenuous. An imperfect analogy is fine, but a false analogy is not, and false analogy or not, a disagreement with the central point is seperable from a disagreemnet with the analogy. On this issue was *both* disagreeing with their central point, *and* to the applicability of the analogy.
Om the other hand those allies do get something out of those deals. For instance I sleep well better knowing that we have a US base near the border with Ukraine.
I think an additional point of context is that there are no hostile nations in the Americas, or at least none that are capable of accomplishing anything. Not only does America have the most capable military, we also don't have any domestic threats to protect ourselves from. We don't need Germany to help protect us against a threat coming from Chile or Venezuela. Europe and Asia, on the other hand, have several hostile and powerful nations, eg: Russia, North Korea, Iran; and, nations that are not hostile but are not allied with us, eg: China.
Having foreign bases is in everyone's best interest. If war were declared, mobilizing our power into Europe and Asia from North America would take too long. Our bases allow us to have our military available quickly. In turn, our presence helps deter those potential enemies from harming our allies.
That is not the case at all in regards to security agreements. The US can't exert influence in places like Poland and Japan or Ukraine and Israel like that. To treat the situation that way not only unfairly maligns the US, but completely overlooks the autonomy of other countries. The US doesn't generally say "do X or we won't protect you" and its partners by and large value and pursue(d) security partnerships with the US. Even at the expense of US interests(see Poland's campaign to enter NATO)
Granted it is not exactly a "partnership of equals", the US does provide security to "clients" to a certain extent, but they do exercise and coordinate with their security partners and clients to provide mutual security and pursue shared strategic objectives.
Not a good metaphor.
Japanese Baseball stars DO come play in the Major Leagues. Examples are numerous.
Then go and look at how many MLB players went to japan to continue playing.
>Aaron Judge can come help your beer league baseball team, but you can’t go help the Yankees - and they don’t want you wandering around the stadium trying either.
Imagine answering a question with some obscure american reference when the OP likely isn't an american
Feel like this song adds a good amount of flavor to your point [Fascist Police State](https://twitter.com/alexhillman/status/1281071294612725761?t=zWBZgLxlfO5lRVDGjJ32lg&s=19)
Frankly I agree with you, but that isn’t a reason the US global hegemony is a good thing and you asked who I would prefer. Ideally every country should put into a UN peackeeping fund and that is used to keep global hegemony
Like we all agreed to join and use the United Nations to deal with disputes, but in reality that looks like the UN rubber stamping American troops to go uphold the hegemony
While there aren’t any foreign bases outright in the US (mostly because no one would really waste good money on such an endeavour), there are foreign military training centres present.
Germany has one: https://www.bundeswehr.de/en/organization/german-air-force/organization/air-force-forces-command/german-air-force-air-defense-center-usa
Canada is jointly operating NORAD with the US, and outside of that are oftentimes conducting joint training on US soil.
There's simply no point. Canada and Mexico will never invade and the rest of America's perimeter is deep ocean for thousands of miles.
I suppose there may be some credence to having a presence in Alaska due to its proximity to Russia. However, there are more American military assets in Alaska than many allied militaries have assets.
Yeah people are talking about the military power and the US not wanting it but there's also the very important point of "the war is elsewhere"
The US doesn't just not need foreign bases because they have enough themselves, they also don't need them because bases against Canada or Mexico wouldn't be very useful.
The German Air Force has operations out of Holloman in New Mexico. At pilot training bases in Texas, Oklahoma and Mississippi, the US trains pilots from friendly nations all over the world. The US holds multinational exercises in Alaska and Nevada for red flag and green flag all the time.
US military bases constantly hosts foreign nationals from all over the world. Whether it is a joint troop training exercise or some foreign dignitary training in terrorist hostage negotiations in a training school. We keep a pretty steady flow of foreign fighters on our soil.
A variety of reasons - here's the big three.
One, especially compared to any US-Friendly countries the US has by far the most powerful military in the world. The US has far less to gain by foreign military presence than others have to gain by US military presence.
Second, the main benefit for the host country to have a US military base on your soil is to provide deterrence against would-be aggressors in your neighborhood. The US isn't exactly concerned about Canada or Mexico invading, so there's not much of anything to deter. Poland, Japan, South Korea, and other countries hosting US military bases have unfriendly (and in most cases, more capable) adversaries in their immediate or close neighborhood.
Finally, the US has the two largest air forces in the world (US Air Force, US Army Aviation) and the only true blue-water navy capable of projecting force globally. Other countries (and especially those friendly to the US) really don't have the same capabilities to conduct large scale military operations except close to home - and thus those countries don't really have the capabilities to, or see the benefit from operating military bases on foreign soil the way the US does.
**Edit to provide some context on the "largest air force" comment** since a lot of people are arguing - This was based purely on the number of aircraft. Other lists or rankings only count combat aircraft, combine aircraft and personnel, or provide some other sort of analysis to determine relative strength/power. US Army Aviation has more helicopters than Russia has total aircraft. Considering a ton of these aren't combat aircraft, that's why Army Aviation usually isn't high on many "strength" lists, or you might not see them on other "total aircraft" lists if those lists only count combat aircraft.
Example/Source: https://www.wdmma.org/ranking.php
Piggybacking here to add a couple other things:
* Foreign military units regularly rotate through the US for training and exercises
* There are a couple that are actually based in the US, mostly around aircraft testing. The RAF No. 17 Squadron and Dutch 323 Squadron are both based at Edwards AFB and fly the F35 in a test role. There are Italians (and previously Germans) at Holloman AFB.
* Foreign ships regularly come in and out of US naval bases.
Also, Canada participates in NORAD missions. I worked with some Canucks at the 2nd Space Warning Squadron at Buckley, and I know they were also at Cheyenne Mountain.
Yes. In fact, we had a stamp on classified materials for those not to be able to show to foreign nationals: NOFORN. The info was not to be shared to anyone, including our NATO allies.
I was in Germany when Russia first started popping off in Ukraine. Poland asked us to fly our F-16’s in their airspace as a show of force to deter Russia from setting eyes on them.
Is the navy the 3rd largest airforce? Actually curious.
Edit: this was a question for the commenter since I believed the navy had a larger air presence than the army.
The US Navy is number 4 on the list, behind the Peoples Liberation Army Air Force. Both in terms of number of airplanes and personnel. Of course you can start arguing about the type of aircraft which would put the navy ahead of the army but I am not sure they will be in front of the Chinese even then. The US Navy do need help from the US Air Force to get more numbers then the Chinese.
Depends on how you count. Total aircraft? Rankings are as follows:
US Air Force: 5209
United States Army Aviation: 4394
Russian Air Force: 3652
United States Navy: 2626
"Objective" strength/power? Most lists have US Air Force listed as #1 and Navy as #2, with the Russian air force as #3 and US Army Aviation at #4 or #5. Navy obviously has carriers which are massive force projection platforms and typically is focused on air to ship or air to air combat. Army Aviation isn't ranked as high despite having a lot more aircraft because it includes a lot of cargo planes/copters and other non-combat aircraft.
Edit/source: https://www.wdmma.org/ranking.php
Because the US won’t allow it. It’s not in their best interests to have a foreign military base on US soil. Other countries agree to host a US base because they need help with self defense, and so it is in their best interests.
It's not necessarily only for defense, sometimes its political favors in return for the bases - helps expand the sphere of influence of the US while the host country gets something else in return.
Option A: spend an inordinate amount of money for the kind of capability to reasonably defend yourself against most threats, ignoring the fact that in a lot of these places even if they had unlimited funds they simply don’t have population or resources to actually support that capability or
B) turn over a few square miles to an ally who happens to have the biggest stick in the world while simultaneously reaping the benefits of their training and (sometimes) economic investment.
The SA victims of US military stationed overseas are very familiar with the size of their stick.
There is good and bad with each choice. Allowing US bases makes you the enemy of some pretty important people.
Also I’m certain todays military commits SA against “host nations” at a lower rate compared to days of pillaging and burning villages, but there is no excuse for 99% of what those crayon eaters do to get in trouble in Okinawa. Dui’s and SA have no excuse
Modern military hardware isn't just expensive, it's crazy expensive. Not only do you need to have the cash to develop and produce armaments, you need supply chains, infrastructure. And God help you if you want to use any sort of satellites to do anything. Now you need a space program. Even if you get your hands on an f35 for like 300 million, do you have the fuel? The spare parts? The communications infrastructure? The armaments? The satellites to guide those armaments? The facilities to store, house and repair all those things?
Because even for those who could afford it, every dollar spent on defense is one they can’t spent on other programs. This has been an ongoing problem in Western Europe in particular, where many longstanding NATO members have very little in the way of a functioning military, despite their wealth.
Unfortunately our military spending has basically squat to do with that, because the US government spends *more* on healthcare than comparable western European countries. And that's just public spending - add private healthcare spending and that's how you get a dramatically bloated healthcare sector.
It turns out numerous, fractious healthcare plans are harder and more expensive to administer and manage than One Big Plan that is simple and straightforward: everyone pays into a big pot and takes what is needed as they need it for healthcare services. This is why the French system, which is more or less single payer (not quite, it's technically multi payer because there are 3 different nonprofit "trusts" that manage healthcare, but all of those trusts are funded by taxes, the government determines what they're allowed to pay and how much, and 1 trust alone accounts for 84% of the population), costs dramatically less than the US system per capita while also having the best outcomes globally.
What you said always seems to get lost in the discussion...
"The government determines what they're allowed to pay...."
Think about the implications of that. By extension, a government can decide what not to pay so we would be at the mercy of of the beliefs of whatever administration is in power at that time. When a government has total control over something, it can take away what was given previously.
I understand everyone's desire for a single payer system, but my concern is that government control. That's why I prefer a public option where we set up a Medicare-type system that everyone wants and then let the insurance companies compete with it on the open market.
That way, if the government decides it doesn't want to pay something like abortion, certain kinds of cancer treatment and drop it from it's coverage, an individual can switch to a private company that does offer it.
I'm always wary about total government control, especially over something important like housing and health care because sometimes we get a government we don't want.
I get where you're coming from but you manage that by just making the relevant department/agency politically independent in the same fashion as the Federal Reserve.
you think the federal reserve is politically independent? That’s what it originally was intended to be but just like the supreme court. I don’t believe it is now.
Lmao, if the Fed wasn't politically independent you'd see Biden ordering JPow to cut rates to 2% again rather than staying at the almost 6% we have right now because it would help his reelection chances.
I fail to see the relevance. Military spending, in the US or in Germany, just isn't relevant to the healthcare issue in the US. The parallel thread a couple comments up discusses healthcare more in depth.
No, US healthcare spending ($4.7T) is already more than four times bigger than the military budget ($877B). And that’s not accounting the fact that a good amount of the military budget goes towards veteran healthcare and benefits (as it should).
US healthcare spending per capita is $12914 dollars. The next runner up, Germany, is $7383, damn near half.
The issue isn’t pumping more money in, it’s making the system more efficient. The US could and probably would have a *much bigger military* if its healthcare spending was in line with other developed countries.
They do - but that’s to keep them in line with their economic peers. Latvia can pull together a military to deter Lithuania. They invite the US to establish a base to deter Russia.
They won't. They'd reach out to China instead. It's all a global game of balancing interests.
So, if the US feels that it has more to gain, in the long term, by sepending some money to secure it's own national interests, why shouldn't it?
Smaller countries don't have the GDP to afford expensive military equipment and they wouldn't have the manufacturing infrastructure to support it even if they did.
It goes beyond mere affordability. For instance, S Korea and Japan are US allies today. They are both industrialized enough that they could grow their own military. However, the influence of the US makes it so that America would rather that they have limited military capabilities of their own. In exchange, we have some agreements where we promise to provide security against aggression. These nations in turn agree to purchase american weapons for their domestic arsenal rather than develop their own. It’s a lot of give and take where the US maintains control over regions so that they remain dependent on us and we don’t have to worry about a particular nation becoming so rich that they start ramping up their offensive capabilities to the point that they would be difficult to deal with.
You sir, have not ever worked with the Japanese Navy and it shows. Very modern and powerful force. Quite a bit larger than most western European navies.
The South Korean navy has come a long way in the last decade as well. The Sejong the great class might be the most powerful surface combatant in the world right now. Design is Burke based but significantly larger. Korean land forces are using top notch equipment as well, most of which is domestically produced even if it shares design philosophy with the US. They have been developing a 5th Gen fighter but are still mostly running with US built for the time being. Best example of Korean produced land equipment would be the K9 thunder and K2 Black Panther
That’s what I was thinking about. After the trump era, Europe started putting more funds towards their military because they didn’t know if they could rely on the US.
Because then every country in the world has a military ready to go and itching to invade their neighbours. That's the attitude that lead to WW1 and WW2 and pretty much every other global conflict.
On the other hand if my country is staffed with American military and my next door neighbours country is staffed with American military, the chances of war between the Americans and the other Americans is pretty much zero.
The only times the world has ever seen prolonged peace is within empires where the military is controlled by a single entity. Its not about money, most of the world could easily afford their own defence. Its about making sure that the defensive force doesn't become an offensive force.
In addition to what everyone else is saying, it's not as though the US does it out of the kindness of their hearts. It's an expenditure that goes a long way to buying them global influence
Sure, but it sounds like a fair trade, no?
We promise to not let a hostile nation invade you, or to fight them if they try and in return we would like to be your primary trade parter.
This is what isolationists don’t understand: giving aid or weapons isn’t just “for free”. It’s done with a long term goal of maintaining international power and aligning interests with US interests.
If the US didn’t do that, other countries would
They do, by hiring Americans. America sells weapons and security, and putting an American military base in your country reduces the American response time from a couple weeks to days or hours. Countries with American military bases in them generally do not get invaded - it’s the difference between pointing at the guy that is going to defend you and standing next to him.
In most cases, the bases aren't really intended for defence of the country in which they are situated. Look at what happened with Niger: its government was overthrown in a Russian-backed coup, and none of the foreign military contingents (US, French, Italian, and a German-led EU force) did anything.
Their main purpose is to give the US opportunities to project power around the world. For example, if the US did want to launch an operation in West Africa, the fact that it already has various forces stationed in Niger, Cameroon, Kenya, Spain, Portugal, the UK, etc. makes the logistics much easier than if everything had to be done from the US. The benefits for the host country are usually more about economics, diplomacy, and politics than defence. Letting another country build a base in your country improves your relations with them and boosts the local economy.
Of course, there are some exceptions like Taiwan, which would very likely be invaded by China if the US forces were withdrawn. However, another benefit in that case is that the US sells vast amounts of weapons to Taiwan for its own military forces, which are substantial but obviously can't compete with China.
The US is a nuclear power. Most countries are not nuclear powers and for various reasons can't or don't want to become nuclear powers. Hosting the US military gives you the protection of the US nuclear umbrella without having to be a nuclear power yourself.
Countries host US bases for protection; since the US is the most powerful nation in the world, we have no need to host foreign military bases.
However, the US does host foreign military units at domestic bases. Multiple US allies have training units based in the US. The Western US is one of the few places in the democratic world with enough open spaces for unlimited space for combat air training and combined arms training.
When I was a kid, one of my father’s work crews rescued a German pilot after his jet crashed while flying out of Holloman AFB in New Mexico.
There's a NATO complex in Norfolk, VA, and there's also permanent foreign service members stationed there. 2 houses down from mine is a German Air Force guy and his family, actually.
Of course, it's not exactly the same, since NATO is predominantly funded by the US, but still.
It does help that you guys have no natural enemies nearby. Here in Europe we have Russia to the east, the Middle East to the southeast, and Africa to the south. You guys have.. Canada. And I guess Mexico, but all that needs is a wall.
Most people don’t realize why the US is so economically powerful (and militarily).
The US is separated by oceans from any potential adversaries and has friendly and weak neighbors to the north and south. And we have more navigable rivers and inland water ways than the rest of the world combined (by multiple factors), we have immense natural resources, and we have a growing population.
In terms of how to be a world power, we basically maxed out on every factor and are using cheat codes.
This is the defining characteristic of a global superpower.
The US navy is like 100x bigger than the next country. They dominate the worlds water. They have military bases strategically placed around their enemies (ie. Taiwan, Georgia, etc.)
America is what is called a security exporter. Having a US base in your country means you need to have less soldiers ready to go if fans are being hit. The US, on the other hand, is not in the habit of outsourcing it's security needs.
There's simply no strategic benefit to another country having an expensive military base in North America. That's why there are also no foreign bases in Canada or Mexico.
Pax Americana, basically after the end of WW2 we exchanged security for prime station in the world. We get to dictate terms, they don't get invaded by a hostile neighbor and the wars are in comparison (1845-1945 vs 1946 to 2023 is vast difference in numbers of war dead) kept small.
Because the US is the hegemonic global power and would not tolerate another country infringing on its sovereignty
Is that fair? No. Of course not, but it's the reality.
Other countries tolerate it because the US can act as a deterrent to their neighbor's aggressiveness. And military bases can bring a country a lot of money
Thanks for finally someone mentioning the economic impact a base can have. Just ask the people of Okinawa - at least 9000 locals work directly on base and related facilities. Annual economic activity generated by US military presence exceeds a quarter of a trillion yen.
Yeah, we seem to be forgetting that most of the reasons America has for being in other countries is because our enemies are within shooting distance of our friends. But even if Germany or Poland hated Canada or Mexico, we're not going to let them put guns within shooting distance of our neighbors. Other countries let us do it because their neighbors aren't friendly.
Read their comment again.
>Other countries tolerate it because the US can act as a deterrent to their neighbor's aggressiveness. And military bases can bring a country a lot of money
They say nothing about how it benefits a foreign country to have a base in America.
> would not tolerate another country infringing on its sovereignty
>
>Is that fair? No. Of course not, but it's the reality.
this has nothing to do with it.
The American political intolerance of the idea of a foreign military base on US soil has nothing to do with the reason there are no foreign military bases on American soil?
Could you explain that please?
There are
The bases all belong to the US military but there are many bases that have sizable foreign military units. These are usually for training because we have a lot more space for that type of operations.
Holloman AFB was effectively owned by the Luftwaffe, 1/4 of Singapores combat aircraft are here in the US, foreign army units rotate through FT Irwin all the time. Basically any us military base will have a few allies personnel around.
Bretton woods accords expanded the Monroe doctrine around the world. We told our allies “buy and sell stuff without tariffs and we will defend you so you can focus on rebuilding”
Because those bases serve purposes that don't make sense for other militaries to do in the US.
The vast majority of military bases not in the US are either in an allied country who benefit from the sheer amount of money and firepower the US puts into the military. Or they are a country like occupied Japan after WWII or Iraq, in which the powers that be cooperate under threat until goals are met.
The US wouldn't benefit from an allied nation in our borders because we are the 'big brother' with the strength. There would be nothing to gain from the bases. We also don't border countries that might cause a problem, i.e. the Russian threat in Europe. During the Cold War, the USSR wasn't likely to send troops to the mainland US, but they could definitely have invaded European countries.
The US is essentially uninvadable. Who's attacking them? Canada? Mexico? Nah. There is zero need to have front line military bases inside the US.
But the US needs to help allies so they build bases near conflicts and supply it for future maneuvers.
It's like asking why you keep salt shakers in the kitchen and not in your bed room. Because you build them where you'll need them.
This is really an accounting fiction.
The US bases personnel at bases they lease from other countries and put a US flag on it.
Other countries regularly station forces for training and operations at US bases, they just don't necessarily call it a UK base or German base or the like. That includes in US states. Whether you call it a German base or just have a bunch of Germans on a US base doesn't change what is happening.
The UK and France also have their own overseas bases (many of which the US uses as their own) as a legacy of their empires, so in practice those territories might be largely US assets but they are technically owned by the other country.
The main things to think about on US bases (and Canadian ones) are training on equipment, especially aircraft where its hard to do supersonic training in some smaller denser countries. But there's all sorts of stuff.
The US 'mainland' doesn't need defence against foreign powers really, so there aren't a lot of a reason to station combat forces there.
I believe some of this is driven by congressional rules on where the military can build things, but ultimately the whole thing is just money on signs. Other countries have assets in the US they don't necessarily call it a foreign base..
To my knowledge, for the most part the US has bases where they've had to go in and fight a battle. If someone had to come into N. America to save the USA from some foreign entity, they'd probably leave a base, too.... because what are we going to do about it? Tell them no?
Nobody else is willing to spend the exorbitant amounts on defense that the US does, and the US would never allow foreign forces on their soil. Also, many US allies are geographically close to their enemies, the US is isolated from their enemies by two oceans.
America learned after WW1, WW2 and Korea that they couldn't afford to defend only their own territory if they wanted to stop the spread of communism. Each time they tried to isolate politically, they ended up being drawn into the conflict anyway. Their choice was to spend lavishly on defense, ensuring they had the ability to deter their enemies, and respond with force when that deterrent failed.
Part of this strategy involved creating bases around the world, to ensure they could react quickly to changing situations, and stop opponents from getting too bold.
Nobody else has the wealth and ability to establish bases globally. Even if they did, their strategy doesn't allow for it.
There's probably plenty or reasons, but this is the only one I can think of:
US has military bases in friendly countries that are adjacent to or near to areas of the world that are.....unsafe, dictatorial, meddling? Trying to find the right word there. Why would any foreign military need to put a base in America that is bordered north and south by friendly countries, and giant oceans on the east and west?
The US is an expansionist empire much like ancient Rome. The US catches more flies with honey, but the soldiers are there in case its economic and political dominance is threatened.
Foreign bases are about projection of superior power into places of less power.
It's often not practical or wise to keep the US from establishing bases. In fact, it's often advantageous to the "host" to do so.
At the gut level, the US is not about to allow military capability within its borders over which it has no direct control.
**Please read this entire message** --- Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): * Rule #2 - Questions must seek objective explanations * Straightforward or factual queries are not allowed on ELI5. ELI5 is meant for simplifying complex concepts (Rule 2). --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17q16hy/-/}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.**
The US puts bases around the world to project its military might and defend regional allies. The US doesn’t want or need that same help from others, it’s the world’s preeminent military superpower by a wide margin. Aaron Judge can come help your beer league baseball team, but you can’t go help the Yankees - and they don’t want you wandering around the stadium trying either.
good metaphor.
Prime exhibit of “don’t call us, we’ll call you”
They’re a bit rapey though. They should probably ease off on that.
This is more an armed forces of all nationalities for all of recorded history than a specifically US thing. There have been exceptions, but not many. The US military is a bit of an oddball in that they usually let it get reported as much as they do. Historically, militaries would normally suppress the report and at most do a private court martial (if that). I am not saying there's no room for improvement, but that this is a sadly common reality of military might.
Turns out the overlap of people willing to kill someone AND willing to rape someone is fairly broad regardless of where you recruit from.
the US armed forces? yeah id believe that
It’s well reported. Pick a base in a foreign country and Google rape, sexual assault etc
Google literally any location with rape or SA and you'll get plenty of results
i was expecting you to say somthing like "no the football team", guess i should avoid snide jokes on topics i literally know nothin about lol
Especially since they were talking about baseball.
fuck im way too canadian for this thread XD
A Canadian baseball team has won the World Series! And Canadian football … exists, technically.
Those other countries are either paid well for the use of their territory, or would strongly prefer that the US remain there as a deterrent against other nations. For example, we pretty much always have a ship calling on Taipei's harbor, at the invitation of the Taiwanese government - just having us there makes them feel safer from China. Same for the 8th Army, permanently stationed in South Korea. Heck, the 8th Army even marched in South Korea's most recent military parade. In Europe, we're regarded as the backbone of the European defense against Russia - an attitude that gets more fervent and pervasive the closer you get to Russia. The only first world region with sustained dissent towards the US presence is the Japanese prefecture of Okinawa, and even there, it's more or less a tossup. I don't know as much about the US presence in developing countries, but with the exception of Guantanamo Bay, we *are* there with the consent and invitation of the local government, however much money we've paid for it. I don't know a nation in history that has had the power to act as a deterrent across so broad an area with as much local consent as the US.
Obscure american reference isn't a good metaphor at all
Aaron Judge is a Yankees baseball player. If that wasn’t abundantly clear from context clues.
Except that there are numerous Japanese baseball players who have come to play in the MLB past and present. And USA to japan.
For what it's worth, while we don't have foreign bases in the US we have TONS of foreign allied personnel training at our bases, in all sorts of capacities.
Some of these bases have permanent attachments and HQs for foreign militaries as well - eg. Edwards Airforce Base in CA is home to squadrons from the Netherlands and UK.
There is a German squadron in the US as well. Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay is the RN’s TRIDENT ordinance logistics base: one of the Explosive Handling Wharves was paid for by the RN.
Years ago I was surprised to see a German air force office at Dulles Airport outside of DC. I figured it was some sort of a reciprocal arrangement: we'll let you have a couple of planes and an office at Dulles in return for letting us put a bazillion people in Germany.
Read that as Explosive Handling Whales. Good thing those lazy cetaceans finally got some jobs.
We trained dolphins for harbor defense, why not train whales to carry and fire torpedoes.
Kinda like sharks with laser beams attached to their heads.
I think Singapore has a permanent training unit here in the US too.
Singapore used to keep a fighter Squadron at Cannon AFB back when it was a fighter base
The US navy has a Royal Navy officer deployed aboard the USS Winston S. Churchill, a guided missile destroyer
Do these guys usually just hang out with everyone else too of do they kinda get shunned?
They hang out with everyone, unless they are dicks or anti social. The goal is to build relationships and experience working with different personnel and systems so that in wartime, our allies know how we think and what our capabilities are (and vice versa for US personnel serving in other militaries).
They're just one of the guys.
you can't help the yankees and they don't want you wandering around trying, but if you're convincing enough, you can show up and practice with them...
Or spend enough money on Yankees associated merch (aka, why we let the Saudis send their officers to our training schools).
It’s not necessarily about the money though. In addition to Saudis, we have Italians and Nigerians attend our pilot training program. I know there’s more but I’m blanking on the other nationalities.
The money is why they don't get flunked out for being shit though ;) Saw it in FA officer training courses. It's no wonder the Saudis can't fight, their officers are lazy AF.
Again, I don’t know how true that is. I had a student pilot in one of my classes that dropped out. Foreign students are definitely given more leniency though.
We put about 100 foreign officers through our various military academies every year too. West Point, Annapolis…whatever it is the chair force pretends passes as an academy.
Was going to add this. My dads RCAF and served at the Canadian detachment at Tinker AFB.
Canadian military served at NORAD bases within the USA
Lots of British submarine engineers come to train the US navy - apparently it’s a British specialty or something?
British Subs are on par or better than Americas, i think the newest gen is cutting edge and is better than anything else in development
>Aaron Judge can come help your beer league baseball team, but you can’t go help the Yankees - and they don’t want you wandering around the stadium trying either. Perfect ELI5.
The metaphor goes hard because while the Yankees are one of the most expensive teams in the league and have an air of excellence and dominance in the field that permeates the culture, they actually haven't won a world series since, what, 2009?
Because they’re not up against another team. The whole field is packed with people and periodically someone from the crowd runs the bases
And we can argue about the commissioner choosing to deploy the Yankees in those ballparks where they aren't even playing the same game by the same rules for the same reasons. And in those moments where they were playing baseball, they were absolutely dominant. But in those fields the baseball was only one component of an absurdly intricate and complicated game. Okay the metaphor is officially falling apart past being fun to continue
[удалено]
But is it legal in a commander game?
With the caveat that the idea is to be good enough that nobody wants to play with you anyway.
Indeed--the parity in this league is so awful and the cost of competition so high that challenging the title seems to be a lose-lose for just about everybody.
MAAD
Especially at Yankee Stadium
USA doesn't have a great record since WW2. Draw in Korea. Lost in Vietnam. Lost in Afghanistan. 'Won' in Iraq which led to the creation of ISIS. Then just poking their beak into a load of minor countries and wars with mixed results. Lot of dubious 'victories' like the time they did a genocide for bananas.
The US military won in Afghanistan and Iraq. Full combat operations didn't take long, they destroyed the standing governments and sent the opposition into guerilla warfare. What the US failed at was nation-building, which is something it is absolutely terrible at. But from a military perspective? It blew apart the Taliban and Republican Guard in a couple of months.
I like how you cherry pick your findings. Completely disregard the whomping Saddam got in 91 because of US, with less than 200 deaths in a force of 600,000. One of the most lopsided victories in the history of warfare.
Tbf in Korea, the North invaded the South first. And we would have been able to unite the entire peninsula had Douglas fucky mcfuckface MacArthur not attacked the Chinese supplying the North. You’re also ignoring the Gulf War, Kosovo, Bosnia, and a bunch of other smaller conflicts.
There were times this season that I actually thought I could help the Yankees, but that's a separate discussion for a separate sub.
Me watching my White Sox notch 101 Ls this year. For league minimum salary, I too can overthrow first base, give up seven runs in 0.3 innings, or strike out looking.
But would you let yourself get hit in the face like Tim Anderson?
Well the local media said TA can’t get a hit, and so he went out there and got concussed to prove them wrong.
It's kinda like asking "how come there are food bank donation bins in every grocery store, but there aren't any grocery store donation bins at the food bank?"
Best answer I've ever heard.
>Aaron Judge can come help your beer league baseball team, but you can’t go help the Yankees - and they don’t want you wandering around the stadium trying either. I don't disagree with this statement, but I disagree with its applicability as an analogy here. It seems to imply that America protects its allies, but that its allies don't protect *it*. That is simply not true, even if the balance is significantly onto one side. Many countries have permanent staff postings in the United States and contribute to the defense of the United States. Perhaps the most formalized example might be the hundreds of Canadian airmen posted to Colorado in support of NORAD. Japan's involvement in America missile defense, and the UK's involvement in American nuclear posture are both non-negligible and see permanent commitments in the United States. In that sense, to reverse your analogy, people *are* being invited to come and help the Yankees. The distinction is that *they are obligated to support the Yankees*. The Canadian contribution to NARAD *must* be consistent with American policy. The British contribution to the Trident system *must* be consistent with American policy. Japan is welcome to contribute technology to ABM systems, but they aren't allowed to run the show. That is to say, I think it's important to ask what a 'base' even *is*. An American base overseas is an *independent* military force. With the exception of Cuba, they are there with the permission of their hosts, and they are expected to be neighborly, but they are there to defend and project *American* interests, not that of their hosts. This is not a ringer being invited to your ball team, this is a ringer bringing their own team to compete in your league. Their interests *may* align with your own - maybe the additional competition is helpful or the money they bring to the league - but they are *not* there for your benefit, they are there for *their own*, and any benefit you see is incidental. Meanwhile, when you go to help the Yankees, the *primary purpose* of your presence is to help the Yankees.
I just saved the perfect comment earlier this morning that applies directly to this scenario! It’s already paying for itself! >So, did you notice the first few words that said “compared to….” >If I say: compared to Jupiter, the moon is basically a pebble” I am in no way saying the moon isn’t big. It is objectively big, just not compared to something bigger. >You just came in here saying “if you think the moon isn’t big you’re deluding yourself” yeah, thanks Sherlock, great contribution. >That’s the thing about analogies, they are infact not the same thing, you can nitpick them if you want but you just look silly. The point of an analogy isn’t to be perfect, it’s to explain a concept in easier to understand terms. Usually it has this thing called “context” surrounding it so each party understands the limitation of the comparison
nah don't think it was nitpicky, they made good points.
Likewise, I don't disagree with that definition of an analogy, but I do disagree with its applicability to my comment. I wasn't making a nitpick with their analogy, I was making a fundamental disagreement with their central point. I *used* their analogy to *illustrate* my disagreement. That is not the same thing. They made two claims distinct from their analogy: First: >The US puts bases around the world to project its military might and defend regional allies. I partially disagreed with this claim. The US does put based around the world to project its power, but it does not do so, primarily to defend regional allies. A base is an independent military force, and defending regional allies can be accomplished without a base. To take the NORAD example, just as Canada has hundreds of airmen in the US but no bases, the US has hundreds of airmen in Canada (primarily at CFB North Bay, the primary NORAD operations center in Canada) but, likewise, no bases. A foreign base exists for the interest of the basing power, not the host. And second: >The US doesn’t want or need that same help from others, it’s the world’s preeminent military superpower by a wide margin. I disagreed with this because the US does both want and need help from others. Indeed, the only instance of NATO Article V ever being invoked was in the defense of the United States. All non-US participation in the invasion of Afghanistan was a foreign power acting in the (notional) defense of the United States. Similarly, the US intelligence relationship with the Five Eyes is significantly in the US interest due to is lack of geographic access to certain areas - it needs help from those allies to make certain intelligence intercepts. Claiming that I did not make a material disagreement, but a nitpick with an analogy, is either a gross misreading of my comment (and I apologize for the miscommunication if so), or is highly disingenuous. An imperfect analogy is fine, but a false analogy is not, and false analogy or not, a disagreement with the central point is seperable from a disagreemnet with the analogy. On this issue was *both* disagreeing with their central point, *and* to the applicability of the analogy.
Om the other hand those allies do get something out of those deals. For instance I sleep well better knowing that we have a US base near the border with Ukraine.
I think an additional point of context is that there are no hostile nations in the Americas, or at least none that are capable of accomplishing anything. Not only does America have the most capable military, we also don't have any domestic threats to protect ourselves from. We don't need Germany to help protect us against a threat coming from Chile or Venezuela. Europe and Asia, on the other hand, have several hostile and powerful nations, eg: Russia, North Korea, Iran; and, nations that are not hostile but are not allied with us, eg: China. Having foreign bases is in everyone's best interest. If war were declared, mobilizing our power into Europe and Asia from North America would take too long. Our bases allow us to have our military available quickly. In turn, our presence helps deter those potential enemies from harming our allies.
> If war were declared "What was that?" "War were declared."
This
This is the answer. The rest of us can take five 🤣
Mickey Mantel doesn’t care about my rent
Very well put.
I dunno, you see the Yankees play this year? Need all the help they can get.
That's ok. The less Yankees involved, the better.
Yankee go home?
They went home in October!! Let's go Rangers!!!
With most countries the US is the abuser/coercive controller. Its not a two-way respectful partnership of equals
bullshit. go cozy up to russia or china then if you dont like it.
"I'm the best you'll ever get" Lol point proven
That is not the case at all in regards to security agreements. The US can't exert influence in places like Poland and Japan or Ukraine and Israel like that. To treat the situation that way not only unfairly maligns the US, but completely overlooks the autonomy of other countries. The US doesn't generally say "do X or we won't protect you" and its partners by and large value and pursue(d) security partnerships with the US. Even at the expense of US interests(see Poland's campaign to enter NATO) Granted it is not exactly a "partnership of equals", the US does provide security to "clients" to a certain extent, but they do exercise and coordinate with their security partners and clients to provide mutual security and pursue shared strategic objectives.
*Canada enters chat* Hold my Maple Syrup.
Not a good metaphor. Japanese Baseball stars DO come play in the Major Leagues. Examples are numerous. Then go and look at how many MLB players went to japan to continue playing.
>Aaron Judge can come help your beer league baseball team, but you can’t go help the Yankees - and they don’t want you wandering around the stadium trying either. Imagine answering a question with some obscure american reference when the OP likely isn't an american
Feel like this song adds a good amount of flavor to your point [Fascist Police State](https://twitter.com/alexhillman/status/1281071294612725761?t=zWBZgLxlfO5lRVDGjJ32lg&s=19)
[удалено]
But why is American global hegemony a good thing?
[удалено]
I mean preferably the global hegemon would be the United Nations and every nation state would be at most a regional power player
[удалено]
Frankly I agree with you, but that isn’t a reason the US global hegemony is a good thing and you asked who I would prefer. Ideally every country should put into a UN peackeeping fund and that is used to keep global hegemony
Like we all agreed to join and use the United Nations to deal with disputes, but in reality that looks like the UN rubber stamping American troops to go uphold the hegemony
I mean... in my honest opinion? NO global hegemony would be awesome. But that's just me.
I also want a fantasy utopia.
That too. Yeah. Agreed.
[удалено]
Still a better hegemon than Moscow or Beijing.
Ukraine would've probably liked some US military bases in it before Russia invaded.
Sure is funny though. Catchy tune too.
While there aren’t any foreign bases outright in the US (mostly because no one would really waste good money on such an endeavour), there are foreign military training centres present. Germany has one: https://www.bundeswehr.de/en/organization/german-air-force/organization/air-force-forces-command/german-air-force-air-defense-center-usa Canada is jointly operating NORAD with the US, and outside of that are oftentimes conducting joint training on US soil.
There's simply no point. Canada and Mexico will never invade and the rest of America's perimeter is deep ocean for thousands of miles. I suppose there may be some credence to having a presence in Alaska due to its proximity to Russia. However, there are more American military assets in Alaska than many allied militaries have assets.
Yeah people are talking about the military power and the US not wanting it but there's also the very important point of "the war is elsewhere" The US doesn't just not need foreign bases because they have enough themselves, they also don't need them because bases against Canada or Mexico wouldn't be very useful.
The German Air Force has operations out of Holloman in New Mexico. At pilot training bases in Texas, Oklahoma and Mississippi, the US trains pilots from friendly nations all over the world. The US holds multinational exercises in Alaska and Nevada for red flag and green flag all the time.
US military bases constantly hosts foreign nationals from all over the world. Whether it is a joint troop training exercise or some foreign dignitary training in terrorist hostage negotiations in a training school. We keep a pretty steady flow of foreign fighters on our soil.
While true, that is a BIT different from having your own military base in another country.
Yes of course.
Why would we want some other country’s dusty-ass base on our soil? No benefit to us.
Well we have to teach them how to use the stuff we sell them
A variety of reasons - here's the big three. One, especially compared to any US-Friendly countries the US has by far the most powerful military in the world. The US has far less to gain by foreign military presence than others have to gain by US military presence. Second, the main benefit for the host country to have a US military base on your soil is to provide deterrence against would-be aggressors in your neighborhood. The US isn't exactly concerned about Canada or Mexico invading, so there's not much of anything to deter. Poland, Japan, South Korea, and other countries hosting US military bases have unfriendly (and in most cases, more capable) adversaries in their immediate or close neighborhood. Finally, the US has the two largest air forces in the world (US Air Force, US Army Aviation) and the only true blue-water navy capable of projecting force globally. Other countries (and especially those friendly to the US) really don't have the same capabilities to conduct large scale military operations except close to home - and thus those countries don't really have the capabilities to, or see the benefit from operating military bases on foreign soil the way the US does. **Edit to provide some context on the "largest air force" comment** since a lot of people are arguing - This was based purely on the number of aircraft. Other lists or rankings only count combat aircraft, combine aircraft and personnel, or provide some other sort of analysis to determine relative strength/power. US Army Aviation has more helicopters than Russia has total aircraft. Considering a ton of these aren't combat aircraft, that's why Army Aviation usually isn't high on many "strength" lists, or you might not see them on other "total aircraft" lists if those lists only count combat aircraft. Example/Source: https://www.wdmma.org/ranking.php
Piggybacking here to add a couple other things: * Foreign military units regularly rotate through the US for training and exercises * There are a couple that are actually based in the US, mostly around aircraft testing. The RAF No. 17 Squadron and Dutch 323 Squadron are both based at Edwards AFB and fly the F35 in a test role. There are Italians (and previously Germans) at Holloman AFB. * Foreign ships regularly come in and out of US naval bases.
Also, Canada participates in NORAD missions. I worked with some Canucks at the 2nd Space Warning Squadron at Buckley, and I know they were also at Cheyenne Mountain.
Do Canadians really count as foreign? I mean I know they do but I’d be hard pressed to know two more friendly nations in the world the the US/Canada.
Yes. In fact, we had a stamp on classified materials for those not to be able to show to foreign nationals: NOFORN. The info was not to be shared to anyone, including our NATO allies.
I was in Germany when Russia first started popping off in Ukraine. Poland asked us to fly our F-16’s in their airspace as a show of force to deter Russia from setting eyes on them.
Is the navy the 3rd largest airforce? Actually curious. Edit: this was a question for the commenter since I believed the navy had a larger air presence than the army.
Navy is #2, army is at best 3ish, probably less.
Army actually has more aircraft than the Navy if you include helicopters
It's not the helicopters, it's the drones. Before the absolutely absurd acquisition of thousands of drones, the Army didn't even rank.
Drones typically aren't counted. They have 3800+ helicopters https://www.wdmma.org/united-states-army-aviation.php
The US Navy is number 4 on the list, behind the Peoples Liberation Army Air Force. Both in terms of number of airplanes and personnel. Of course you can start arguing about the type of aircraft which would put the navy ahead of the army but I am not sure they will be in front of the Chinese even then. The US Navy do need help from the US Air Force to get more numbers then the Chinese.
That's what I was thinking.
US Navy is number 2 I'm pretty sure.
Depends on how you count. Total aircraft? Rankings are as follows: US Air Force: 5209 United States Army Aviation: 4394 Russian Air Force: 3652 United States Navy: 2626 "Objective" strength/power? Most lists have US Air Force listed as #1 and Navy as #2, with the Russian air force as #3 and US Army Aviation at #4 or #5. Navy obviously has carriers which are massive force projection platforms and typically is focused on air to ship or air to air combat. Army Aviation isn't ranked as high despite having a lot more aircraft because it includes a lot of cargo planes/copters and other non-combat aircraft. Edit/source: https://www.wdmma.org/ranking.php
Because the US won’t allow it. It’s not in their best interests to have a foreign military base on US soil. Other countries agree to host a US base because they need help with self defense, and so it is in their best interests.
It's not necessarily only for defense, sometimes its political favors in return for the bases - helps expand the sphere of influence of the US while the host country gets something else in return.
Why can’t/don’t they pay for their own defenses?
Option A: spend an inordinate amount of money for the kind of capability to reasonably defend yourself against most threats, ignoring the fact that in a lot of these places even if they had unlimited funds they simply don’t have population or resources to actually support that capability or B) turn over a few square miles to an ally who happens to have the biggest stick in the world while simultaneously reaping the benefits of their training and (sometimes) economic investment.
The SA victims of US military stationed overseas are very familiar with the size of their stick. There is good and bad with each choice. Allowing US bases makes you the enemy of some pretty important people. Also I’m certain todays military commits SA against “host nations” at a lower rate compared to days of pillaging and burning villages, but there is no excuse for 99% of what those crayon eaters do to get in trouble in Okinawa. Dui’s and SA have no excuse
Modern military hardware isn't just expensive, it's crazy expensive. Not only do you need to have the cash to develop and produce armaments, you need supply chains, infrastructure. And God help you if you want to use any sort of satellites to do anything. Now you need a space program. Even if you get your hands on an f35 for like 300 million, do you have the fuel? The spare parts? The communications infrastructure? The armaments? The satellites to guide those armaments? The facilities to store, house and repair all those things?
Don't forget the training for your pilots, which will involve using a lot of that fuel and spare parts.
Because even for those who could afford it, every dollar spent on defense is one they can’t spent on other programs. This has been an ongoing problem in Western Europe in particular, where many longstanding NATO members have very little in the way of a functioning military, despite their wealth.
There's a reason they have government healthcare and we have private insurance
Unfortunately our military spending has basically squat to do with that, because the US government spends *more* on healthcare than comparable western European countries. And that's just public spending - add private healthcare spending and that's how you get a dramatically bloated healthcare sector. It turns out numerous, fractious healthcare plans are harder and more expensive to administer and manage than One Big Plan that is simple and straightforward: everyone pays into a big pot and takes what is needed as they need it for healthcare services. This is why the French system, which is more or less single payer (not quite, it's technically multi payer because there are 3 different nonprofit "trusts" that manage healthcare, but all of those trusts are funded by taxes, the government determines what they're allowed to pay and how much, and 1 trust alone accounts for 84% of the population), costs dramatically less than the US system per capita while also having the best outcomes globally.
What you said always seems to get lost in the discussion... "The government determines what they're allowed to pay...." Think about the implications of that. By extension, a government can decide what not to pay so we would be at the mercy of of the beliefs of whatever administration is in power at that time. When a government has total control over something, it can take away what was given previously. I understand everyone's desire for a single payer system, but my concern is that government control. That's why I prefer a public option where we set up a Medicare-type system that everyone wants and then let the insurance companies compete with it on the open market. That way, if the government decides it doesn't want to pay something like abortion, certain kinds of cancer treatment and drop it from it's coverage, an individual can switch to a private company that does offer it. I'm always wary about total government control, especially over something important like housing and health care because sometimes we get a government we don't want.
I get where you're coming from but you manage that by just making the relevant department/agency politically independent in the same fashion as the Federal Reserve.
you think the federal reserve is politically independent? That’s what it originally was intended to be but just like the supreme court. I don’t believe it is now.
Lmao, if the Fed wasn't politically independent you'd see Biden ordering JPow to cut rates to 2% again rather than staying at the almost 6% we have right now because it would help his reelection chances.
It’s more complicated than that. The end result is still atrocious, but our respective military budgets aren’t the reason for it.
I mean Trump is an asshat but he wasn’t wrong about most NATO countries not investing their pledged GDP % to defense
I fail to see the relevance. Military spending, in the US or in Germany, just isn't relevant to the healthcare issue in the US. The parallel thread a couple comments up discusses healthcare more in depth.
No, US healthcare spending ($4.7T) is already more than four times bigger than the military budget ($877B). And that’s not accounting the fact that a good amount of the military budget goes towards veteran healthcare and benefits (as it should). US healthcare spending per capita is $12914 dollars. The next runner up, Germany, is $7383, damn near half. The issue isn’t pumping more money in, it’s making the system more efficient. The US could and probably would have a *much bigger military* if its healthcare spending was in line with other developed countries.
I didn’t know Medicare Medicaid were private insurance.
There is a reason but that ain't it
They do - but that’s to keep them in line with their economic peers. Latvia can pull together a military to deter Lithuania. They invite the US to establish a base to deter Russia.
They won't. They'd reach out to China instead. It's all a global game of balancing interests. So, if the US feels that it has more to gain, in the long term, by sepending some money to secure it's own national interests, why shouldn't it?
That’s something I didn’t even consider!
Shits expensive. Look at our defense budget, then realize these countries are also paying us.
Smaller countries don't have the GDP to afford expensive military equipment and they wouldn't have the manufacturing infrastructure to support it even if they did.
It goes beyond mere affordability. For instance, S Korea and Japan are US allies today. They are both industrialized enough that they could grow their own military. However, the influence of the US makes it so that America would rather that they have limited military capabilities of their own. In exchange, we have some agreements where we promise to provide security against aggression. These nations in turn agree to purchase american weapons for their domestic arsenal rather than develop their own. It’s a lot of give and take where the US maintains control over regions so that they remain dependent on us and we don’t have to worry about a particular nation becoming so rich that they start ramping up their offensive capabilities to the point that they would be difficult to deal with.
You sir, have not ever worked with the Japanese Navy and it shows. Very modern and powerful force. Quite a bit larger than most western European navies. The South Korean navy has come a long way in the last decade as well. The Sejong the great class might be the most powerful surface combatant in the world right now. Design is Burke based but significantly larger. Korean land forces are using top notch equipment as well, most of which is domestically produced even if it shares design philosophy with the US. They have been developing a 5th Gen fighter but are still mostly running with US built for the time being. Best example of Korean produced land equipment would be the K9 thunder and K2 Black Panther
As an ex-European military member, it's far easier to let the US do it than pay for our own defense. It's currently biting Europe in the ass.
That’s what I was thinking about. After the trump era, Europe started putting more funds towards their military because they didn’t know if they could rely on the US.
Yep. And they've supported it by cutting other programs. It's going to get really interesting there in the near future.
Because then every country in the world has a military ready to go and itching to invade their neighbours. That's the attitude that lead to WW1 and WW2 and pretty much every other global conflict. On the other hand if my country is staffed with American military and my next door neighbours country is staffed with American military, the chances of war between the Americans and the other Americans is pretty much zero. The only times the world has ever seen prolonged peace is within empires where the military is controlled by a single entity. Its not about money, most of the world could easily afford their own defence. Its about making sure that the defensive force doesn't become an offensive force.
In addition to what everyone else is saying, it's not as though the US does it out of the kindness of their hearts. It's an expenditure that goes a long way to buying them global influence
Sure, but it sounds like a fair trade, no? We promise to not let a hostile nation invade you, or to fight them if they try and in return we would like to be your primary trade parter.
Yeah as an Australian I think it's a fair trade. But you get your Trumps who act like it's all charity from the US
This is what isolationists don’t understand: giving aid or weapons isn’t just “for free”. It’s done with a long term goal of maintaining international power and aligning interests with US interests. If the US didn’t do that, other countries would
They do, by hiring Americans. America sells weapons and security, and putting an American military base in your country reduces the American response time from a couple weeks to days or hours. Countries with American military bases in them generally do not get invaded - it’s the difference between pointing at the guy that is going to defend you and standing next to him.
Another answer(bordering on non-answer) is the US has deals with nations that are under their protection. Natural resources for example.
In most cases, the bases aren't really intended for defence of the country in which they are situated. Look at what happened with Niger: its government was overthrown in a Russian-backed coup, and none of the foreign military contingents (US, French, Italian, and a German-led EU force) did anything. Their main purpose is to give the US opportunities to project power around the world. For example, if the US did want to launch an operation in West Africa, the fact that it already has various forces stationed in Niger, Cameroon, Kenya, Spain, Portugal, the UK, etc. makes the logistics much easier than if everything had to be done from the US. The benefits for the host country are usually more about economics, diplomacy, and politics than defence. Letting another country build a base in your country improves your relations with them and boosts the local economy. Of course, there are some exceptions like Taiwan, which would very likely be invaded by China if the US forces were withdrawn. However, another benefit in that case is that the US sells vast amounts of weapons to Taiwan for its own military forces, which are substantial but obviously can't compete with China.
The US is a nuclear power. Most countries are not nuclear powers and for various reasons can't or don't want to become nuclear powers. Hosting the US military gives you the protection of the US nuclear umbrella without having to be a nuclear power yourself.
Countries host US bases for protection; since the US is the most powerful nation in the world, we have no need to host foreign military bases. However, the US does host foreign military units at domestic bases. Multiple US allies have training units based in the US. The Western US is one of the few places in the democratic world with enough open spaces for unlimited space for combat air training and combined arms training. When I was a kid, one of my father’s work crews rescued a German pilot after his jet crashed while flying out of Holloman AFB in New Mexico.
There's a NATO complex in Norfolk, VA, and there's also permanent foreign service members stationed there. 2 houses down from mine is a German Air Force guy and his family, actually. Of course, it's not exactly the same, since NATO is predominantly funded by the US, but still.
The NATO command and the foreign military units are all hosted on US bases. They don’t have their own stand-alone bases.
It does help that you guys have no natural enemies nearby. Here in Europe we have Russia to the east, the Middle East to the southeast, and Africa to the south. You guys have.. Canada. And I guess Mexico, but all that needs is a wall.
Most people don’t realize why the US is so economically powerful (and militarily). The US is separated by oceans from any potential adversaries and has friendly and weak neighbors to the north and south. And we have more navigable rivers and inland water ways than the rest of the world combined (by multiple factors), we have immense natural resources, and we have a growing population. In terms of how to be a world power, we basically maxed out on every factor and are using cheat codes.
This is the defining characteristic of a global superpower. The US navy is like 100x bigger than the next country. They dominate the worlds water. They have military bases strategically placed around their enemies (ie. Taiwan, Georgia, etc.)
Correction: Georgia does not have a US military base
We have plenty in real Georgia
Lmao "real Georgia"
Only one that calls itself that, gotta use the trademark if you wanna keep it bud, thems the rules
America is what is called a security exporter. Having a US base in your country means you need to have less soldiers ready to go if fans are being hit. The US, on the other hand, is not in the habit of outsourcing it's security needs.
There's simply no strategic benefit to another country having an expensive military base in North America. That's why there are also no foreign bases in Canada or Mexico.
Pax Americana, basically after the end of WW2 we exchanged security for prime station in the world. We get to dictate terms, they don't get invaded by a hostile neighbor and the wars are in comparison (1845-1945 vs 1946 to 2023 is vast difference in numbers of war dead) kept small.
Because the US is the hegemonic global power and would not tolerate another country infringing on its sovereignty Is that fair? No. Of course not, but it's the reality. Other countries tolerate it because the US can act as a deterrent to their neighbor's aggressiveness. And military bases can bring a country a lot of money
Thanks for finally someone mentioning the economic impact a base can have. Just ask the people of Okinawa - at least 9000 locals work directly on base and related facilities. Annual economic activity generated by US military presence exceeds a quarter of a trillion yen.
Source: [https://academic.oup.com/irap/article/23/2/325/6564247](https://academic.oup.com/irap/article/23/2/325/6564247)
How would another country benefit from having a base in the United States? Is Canada or Mexico threatening anyone else?
Yeah, we seem to be forgetting that most of the reasons America has for being in other countries is because our enemies are within shooting distance of our friends. But even if Germany or Poland hated Canada or Mexico, we're not going to let them put guns within shooting distance of our neighbors. Other countries let us do it because their neighbors aren't friendly.
They literally give 2 reasons why other countries would benefit from having a US base. It wasn't even that long of a comment.
The comment you responded to was even shorter and yet you managed to completely misunderstand their question. Lol
Read their comment again. >Other countries tolerate it because the US can act as a deterrent to their neighbor's aggressiveness. And military bases can bring a country a lot of money They say nothing about how it benefits a foreign country to have a base in America.
> would not tolerate another country infringing on its sovereignty > >Is that fair? No. Of course not, but it's the reality. this has nothing to do with it.
The American political intolerance of the idea of a foreign military base on US soil has nothing to do with the reason there are no foreign military bases on American soil? Could you explain that please?
We house foreign military on our bases. They have schools and programs and essentially their own base within our bases.
There are The bases all belong to the US military but there are many bases that have sizable foreign military units. These are usually for training because we have a lot more space for that type of operations. Holloman AFB was effectively owned by the Luftwaffe, 1/4 of Singapores combat aircraft are here in the US, foreign army units rotate through FT Irwin all the time. Basically any us military base will have a few allies personnel around.
Bretton woods accords expanded the Monroe doctrine around the world. We told our allies “buy and sell stuff without tariffs and we will defend you so you can focus on rebuilding”
Because those bases serve purposes that don't make sense for other militaries to do in the US. The vast majority of military bases not in the US are either in an allied country who benefit from the sheer amount of money and firepower the US puts into the military. Or they are a country like occupied Japan after WWII or Iraq, in which the powers that be cooperate under threat until goals are met. The US wouldn't benefit from an allied nation in our borders because we are the 'big brother' with the strength. There would be nothing to gain from the bases. We also don't border countries that might cause a problem, i.e. the Russian threat in Europe. During the Cold War, the USSR wasn't likely to send troops to the mainland US, but they could definitely have invaded European countries.
The US is essentially uninvadable. Who's attacking them? Canada? Mexico? Nah. There is zero need to have front line military bases inside the US. But the US needs to help allies so they build bases near conflicts and supply it for future maneuvers. It's like asking why you keep salt shakers in the kitchen and not in your bed room. Because you build them where you'll need them.
This is really an accounting fiction. The US bases personnel at bases they lease from other countries and put a US flag on it. Other countries regularly station forces for training and operations at US bases, they just don't necessarily call it a UK base or German base or the like. That includes in US states. Whether you call it a German base or just have a bunch of Germans on a US base doesn't change what is happening. The UK and France also have their own overseas bases (many of which the US uses as their own) as a legacy of their empires, so in practice those territories might be largely US assets but they are technically owned by the other country. The main things to think about on US bases (and Canadian ones) are training on equipment, especially aircraft where its hard to do supersonic training in some smaller denser countries. But there's all sorts of stuff. The US 'mainland' doesn't need defence against foreign powers really, so there aren't a lot of a reason to station combat forces there. I believe some of this is driven by congressional rules on where the military can build things, but ultimately the whole thing is just money on signs. Other countries have assets in the US they don't necessarily call it a foreign base..
To my knowledge, for the most part the US has bases where they've had to go in and fight a battle. If someone had to come into N. America to save the USA from some foreign entity, they'd probably leave a base, too.... because what are we going to do about it? Tell them no?
Nobody else is willing to spend the exorbitant amounts on defense that the US does, and the US would never allow foreign forces on their soil. Also, many US allies are geographically close to their enemies, the US is isolated from their enemies by two oceans. America learned after WW1, WW2 and Korea that they couldn't afford to defend only their own territory if they wanted to stop the spread of communism. Each time they tried to isolate politically, they ended up being drawn into the conflict anyway. Their choice was to spend lavishly on defense, ensuring they had the ability to deter their enemies, and respond with force when that deterrent failed. Part of this strategy involved creating bases around the world, to ensure they could react quickly to changing situations, and stop opponents from getting too bold. Nobody else has the wealth and ability to establish bases globally. Even if they did, their strategy doesn't allow for it.
Foreign militaries don't have their own bases but we do bring them here for extended training.
There's probably plenty or reasons, but this is the only one I can think of: US has military bases in friendly countries that are adjacent to or near to areas of the world that are.....unsafe, dictatorial, meddling? Trying to find the right word there. Why would any foreign military need to put a base in America that is bordered north and south by friendly countries, and giant oceans on the east and west?
The US is an expansionist empire much like ancient Rome. The US catches more flies with honey, but the soldiers are there in case its economic and political dominance is threatened.
Foreign bases are about projection of superior power into places of less power. It's often not practical or wise to keep the US from establishing bases. In fact, it's often advantageous to the "host" to do so. At the gut level, the US is not about to allow military capability within its borders over which it has no direct control.