FaRmLaNd said:
mrstickball said:
The 11 carriers are needed to ensure that there is at least some power projection. Just because most carriers are in the hands of allies does not mean that we do not need them - carriers aren't for attacking other carriers, but projecting air power over potential warzones.
For example, lets say a theoretical war starts in SE Asia, and Australia gets attacked. Australia wants our help. How are we going to provide air power to Australia if it is behind enemy lines? That is what aircraft carriers are for - mobile floating fortresses that can project strikes onto enemies.
And its precisely for that reason I want our troops out - the whole idea on having so many people overseas in bases is for power projection. Why do we need power projection like that when we have 11 said carriers?
Essentially, I want to see America like this (militarily):
Reduce our presence in Europe by 90% or more
Reduce our presence in Asia by 50% - force Korea, Taiwan and Japan to care about their own military for once
Remove all troops from Latin America and Africa
Reduce our presence in the Mid East by 80% (sans Diego Garcia)
To compensate for that, field about half of our carrier fleet around the world in case of wars, with the other half at port, ready to move in the case of a war.
|
I've read that the USA military has around 800 overseas bases. Which is more bases then any country has domestically let alone outside of their country. The winding back of the US empire would save you guys rediculous amounts of money and if done right not neccesarily drastically reduce your projection capabilities. I'm sure plenty of those overseas bases aren't neccesary for that.
|
That is 100% correct. We have about 800 bases, and it costs us dearly. We have nearly 100,000 troops in Europe....Why? Why do we need troops in Europe? We aren't worried about the Soviets anymore.
The only places that troops are justified would be Asia, in case of North Korea attacking South Korea (in which, millions may die in the matter of a few days of fighting). However, we could reduce our forces there in favor of more SK and JP spending on forces. In all honesty, we've screwed Japan over for far too long - they are ready to become a regional player, but they spend about 1% of their GDP on spending, when it needs to be 2-3 times that. The same goes for SK and Taiwan too. We've changed regional balances of power, which have weakened some nations, and we shouldn't do that.
