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.

I had someting very insightmful to say in this topic that I thought of at work today, but god damn I'f I'm not to god damned drinking to remember. Martini, stirred, 3 olives. Odd numbers, always, it's a god damn rule. I love you guys. goodniht.

I actually seem to recall reading somehwere that Japan had one of the top 10 strongest armies in the world... despite the fact that they aren't really supposed to have a full army.

It didn't bleed enough. Germany rose to supremacy again after only a few decades. Let's be honest here if Germany had decent allies the war would have been a piece of cake. Germany alone could easily take out any other country back then in a matter of weeks(if it had average leadership instead of mediocre leadership). If Hitler had any brains in his head he would have destroyed the radar system of Great-Britain first instead of bombing the useless capital. He would have never attacked Russia so soon if he only had some brains in his head. What idiot retreats from Russia anyway and comes back in the winter?

I've already restated my statement, its a "defensive" type of measure, if you are so wise, go and try to understand what I'm implying.

So you really think that the world can be free of nuclear weapons? Go run the U.S. Legislation then

Even after dismantling 2/3 of nuclear weapons, we still have more than enough to completely nuke Earth 7 times over.
I don't think we really need to produce anymore.

IMO, having a nuke in your possession simply send a message that, "don't mess with us or we both go down together."
So, whoever isn't afraid of death won.

The UK has a (relatively) tiny nuclear deterent that I think serves it well in the current global climate.

It recently accounced plans to cut that detterent by 25%, leaving you with just three Trident submarine based launch facilities.

This allows you to always have two at sea and one undergoing maintenance.

I'm not sure where you read that..

Combat Aircraft inventory (fighters/bombers/strike)

• Republic of Korea - 511
• Japan - 391
• Taiwan - 341
• Australia - 91

Naval Assets (destroyers, subs, ect):

• Taiwan - 103 ships (mostly missle boats)
• Japan - 71 ships
• Republic of Korea - 63 ships
• Australia - 32 ships

Active military forces (personel):

• Republic of Korea - 655,000
• Taiwan - 290,000
• Japan - 238,000
• Australia - 55,000

So in some ways, the JDF is pretty good - naval and air assets are good. Overall personel is low for their comparative size (they have one of the lowest per capita military levels)

But again, they spend about 1% of GDP on the military, and it should be higher than that, given that we spend billions a year on our forces in Japan....That allows Japan to get off with less responsibility. Yes, they were horrific in the first half of last century, but people change. Look at ze Germans post-WW2 and the Brits post-1812, hehe. They can be reasonable people when given time

Well, you all have made really good arguements and great points, thanks for commenting

Goddamnit, we need an International Fleet.