"Reverse the Tide: A Forward-Stationed Army is Better... " Topic

…for America

"Recent saber-rattling by North Korea as well as Russia's upcoming Zapad military exercise have renewed discussion over the U.S. military's forward presence in Asia and Europe. Debate over the size, structure, capabilities, and positioning of American military forces in Europe and Korea is nothing new, though. Since the end of the Cold War, the number of U.S. troops based overseas has steadily fallen, particularly in the wake of the 2004 Integrated Global Posture and Basing Study and the pub­lication of the Bush administration's report to Congress that same year on Strengthening U.S. Global Defense Posture.

The Bush and Obama administrations, as well as key supporters in Congress, relied upon remarkably similar reasoning. Foremost was a perception that it is simply cheaper to base American troops in the United States because, for instance, overseas bases require the construction of schools for military dependents. One study conducted for the Army in 2003 concluded that there would be significant net annual savings associated with reducing forward stationing — that is, the number of troops based overseas — and instead shifting toward increased peacetime rotational deployments of U.S. troops…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Give South Korea and Japan nuclear weapons and bring all American troops home from Korea other than a minor headquarters and intelligence teams.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
bunkermeister.blogspot.com

Japan really doesn't want nukes, though.

Maybe if the Norks get stupid and actually hit the Japanese with one, will they rearm. But most of them take Article 9 very seriously. About as seriously as the US takes the First Amendment, in fact.

The big problem with not having forward-deployed forces is getting the heavy equipment on-scene. You just can't ship an armor battalion anywhere in a hurry, so the next-best option to having forward-deployed troops is pre-positioned equipment like the US has in Europe.