It is my understanding that Ron Paul wants to close the forgiegn bases. This is not a thread about Ron Paul, but rather a discussion on the pros and cons of closing these bases. These are a few I just threw together. Have today's technological advances in delivery systems somewhat diminished the need for outposts all over the world?
Pros:
1. Bringing bases back to USA means more money spent locally and less to the foreign economies.
2. More forces at home and available for defensive purposes. (Guarding the borders?)
3. If we aren't spending money to keep up foreign bases, we could spend it on long range delivery systems for weapon systems of all types.
Cons:
1. Greater time required to react to threats around the world.
2. Have to rapidly establish medical bases/hospitals since we won't have hospitals on bases already nearby (ie Germany).
3. More troops available to keep the citizens in line.
The point is probably moot as I doubt the pentagon would give the bases up anyway. But lets have an exercise it strategery anyway.
Pros:
1. Bringing bases back to USA means more money spent locally and less to the foreign economies.
2. More forces at home and available for defensive purposes. (Guarding the borders?)
3. If we aren't spending money to keep up foreign bases, we could spend it on long range delivery systems for weapon systems of all types.
Cons:
1. Greater time required to react to threats around the world.
2. Have to rapidly establish medical bases/hospitals since we won't have hospitals on bases already nearby (ie Germany).
3. More troops available to keep the citizens in line.
The point is probably moot as I doubt the pentagon would give the bases up anyway. But lets have an exercise it strategery anyway.