"Withdrawing From Overseas Bases: Why a ..." Topic
6 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article Adapting an inexpensive toy to make an objective marker.
Featured Workbench Article Mal Wright  experiments to find a better way to mount aircraft for wargaming.
Featured Profile Article The Editor is invited to tour the factory of Simtac, a U.S. manufacturer of figures in nearly all periods, scales, and genres.
Current Poll
Featured Movie Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Tango01  | 14 Mar 2019 12:34 p.m. PST |
…Forward-Deployed Military Posture Is Unnecessary, Outdated, and Dangerous "The United States maintains an empire of military bases throughout the world—about 800 of them in more than 70 countries. This forward-deployed military posture incurs substantial costs and disadvantages, exposing the United States to vulnerabilities and unintended consequences. The strategic justifications for overseas bases—that they deter adversaries, reassure allies, and enable rapid deployment operations—have lost much of their value and relevance in the contemporary security environment. Problems with U.S. overseas bases include:…."
Main page
link Amicalement
Armand |
| Lion in the Stars | 14 Mar 2019 1:54 p.m. PST |
It takes 30 days to pack up an armored or even mechanized/Stryker unit for travel, 30+days to get them across the ocean, and a minimum of 72 hours to get ready for combat at the other end. How fast was the Crimea taken? |
| Thresher01 | 14 Mar 2019 6:00 p.m. PST |
The stated premise is fatally flawed. Clearly, the writer has an agenda he/she is pushing, as anyone can clearly see, just from the title of the piece. How much more dangerous would it be for the troops and equipment not to be there, if/when things start to go bad, and/or when our enemies are emboldened by no US presence in the region(s)? |
| StarCruiser | 14 Mar 2019 6:03 p.m. PST |
^ Precisely… Someone is trying to justify massive military budget cuts. |
| Tango01 | 15 Mar 2019 12:20 p.m. PST |
|
| Lion in the Stars | 15 Mar 2019 5:07 p.m. PST |
Not to mention the treaty obligations for Japan, South Korea, and NATO. (And lots of other places, but those are the ones I know off the top of my head)
Also, want to see an arms race and massive political instability kick off?
- Have Japan suddenly responsible for it's own defense and watch every nation that suffered under the Japanese during WW2 panic.
- Have South Korea solely responsible for their own defense and watch them panic (and probably immediately get invaded by the North).
- Have Germany responsible for their own defense and watch the rest of Europe panic.
|
|
