All the countries where the US has a military presence.

a reply to: TechniXcality

Yes I am privy to classified information

I read ATS son, and worldwide news, if I come across a firewall I bypass it

I know about aliens, about US secret technology about Russian crude but effective alternatives,

I know about US plans for world domination but Russia and China are in the way

I know about long term plans for culling the masses but again Russia and China are in the way. In fact Russia wants growth of population not decrease

If you are willing to learn why the side you are on is not just wrong but will lose in the long run, I am willing to teach you

The "ark" is now heading west of Seattle

There are multiple reasons for having bases spread around the world. These are military bases for the most part, and thus they have a military purpose. The most important purpose is to give the US the option of a quick response, whether it be with fighters, bombers, fighter-bombers, reconnaissance aircraft, missiles, or ground forces. The majority of such bases do not have a large enough ground presence for an invasion of a foreign country or anything that large, but what these bases allow for in that respect is an assembly area, in case conflict broke out. By having many military bases spread around the world, wherever conflict may break out, the US military will have a place where they can send their military resources, assemble them, and then deploy them. If a conflict breaks out and US action is needed, but there is no nearby military base, strategic options are severely limited, and it is likely to cost more financially to work around this limitation. History has shown us that when the US needs to get militarily involved in some region or theater, but they do not have their own base, other nations are not always willing to allow the US access to their facilities. This is a huge problem, and it is essentially an unknown. In warfare, unknowns often create friction, and friction is bad.

It is all about being prepared for many possibilities, while at the same time creating a rapid response time for any area on the globe. Most of the time these bases will be most used by aircraft, considering that the US usually is involved in more air campaigns than ground conflicts. Having as close of a base as possible for launching missiles is also a plus for the military. If ballistic missiles can be launched from a closer location, then the missile does not have to be an ICBM. Plus, the enemy's response time, if they have the capability to bring down missiles, is greatly reduced when the missile is launched closer to them, considering they have less time to detect it and respond correctly. When a military decision, or any decision really, depends on having the most information possible, then the more time one has to gather information the better the decision is likely to be. So by cutting the enemy's response time, the likelihood of them responding incorrectly or in a less than optimal manner increases.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: johnwick


Because weaponizing space is expressly forbidden by treaties between the US and Russia.

Just to start off with.

And they USA has never broken a treaty before?


Treaty can be amened. Especially if they are dumb.

Space based weapons are of the civilization ending variety mostly.

For instance "rods from god".

It is nothing but tungsten steel.

But a telephone pole sized rod has the same power as a tactical nuke just because of kinetic energy release on impact.

So we use these they use use them, others use them.

It will be nuclear winter through non nuclear weapons.

It is bad for all.

Hence the treaty and the need to honor it.

How do you not see the obvious logic in this?

originally posted by: MensaIT3
a reply to: johnwick

If you don't like Russia taking Crimea

Then may I suggest you change your policy to tolerant of Russia and not trying to slow cook them with insidious things like regime changes all over even Ukraine

Russians are not stupid even though they sometimes look it, they are not drunk every day, sometimes they are sober and they look at US warring and ask. Are we next ?

Your entire point lacks sense reason or context.

Russia was weak and on the verge if complete collapse after the fall if the USSR.

Did we attack?

No we gave Russia money to prop up its gov and economy.

Hundreds of billions in fact.

More than once.

Not 20 years ago.

If our plan was to destroy russia, that would have been the time.

Not helping Russia get back on its feet and then fighting them.

They were down.

We gave them a hand up.

Try Google it works.

We just gave, not loaned, gave Russia around half a trillion dollars to get them back on their feet.

Try reading history, it adds perspective to things.

As the worlds leading power we are expected to have presence in the world especially in areas of trouble.

I hope china is up for the task because if they displace America and its currency as the worlds leader then they will have to also take up the responsibility that the UN puts on the US, that being Policing the world.

originally posted by: johnwick
Russia was weak and on the verge if complete collapse after the fall if the USSR.

Did we attack?

No we gave Russia money to prop up its gov and

Oh please

US gave lent money to Oligarchs to buy Russia in US name

Why destroy Russia when you thought you HAD IT

But you didn't account Putin into your equations

Now your precious oligarchs are all but gone

Double post
Mod del

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
There are multiple reasons for having bases spread around the world. These are military bases for the most part, and thus they have a military purpose. The most important purpose is to give the US the option of a quick response, whether it be with fighters, bombers, fighter-bombers, reconnaissance aircraft, missiles, or ground forces. The majority of such bases do not have a large enough ground presence for an invasion of a foreign country or anything that large, but what these bases allow for in that respect is an assembly area, in case conflict broke out. By having many military bases spread around the world, wherever conflict may break out, the US military will have a place where they can send their military resources, assemble them, and then deploy them. If a conflict breaks out and US action is needed, but there is no nearby military base, strategic options are severely limited, and it is likely to cost more financially to work around this limitation. History has shown us that when the US needs to get militarily involved in some region or theater, but they do not have their own base, other nations are not always willing to allow the US access to their facilities. This is a huge problem, and it is essentially an unknown. In warfare, unknowns often create friction, and friction is bad.

It is all about being prepared for many possibilities, while at the same time creating a rapid response time for any area on the globe. Most of the time these bases will be most used by aircraft, considering that the US usually is involved in more air campaigns than ground conflicts. Having as close of a base as possible for launching missiles is also a plus for the military. If ballistic missiles can be launched from a closer location, then the missile does not have to be an ICBM. Plus, the enemy's response time, if they have the capability to bring down missiles, is greatly reduced when the missile is launched closer to them, considering they have less time to detect it and respond correctly. When a military decision, or any decision really, depends on having the most information possible, then the more time one has to gather information the better the decision is likely to be. So by cutting the enemy's response time, the likelihood of them responding incorrectly or in a less than optimal manner increases.

Perfectly stated.

This is the exact reason for these bases. And the host countries want us there.

We don't force this on any if them.

It is a strategic partnership.

Except in Germany and Japan.

They were mandatory, but are at present not.

They are willful partnerships.

Since the treaties of WW2 have expired.

originally posted by: MensaIT3

originally posted by: johnwick
Russia was weak and on the verge if complete collapse after the fall if the USSR.

Did we attack?

No we gave Russia money to prop up its gov and

Oh please

US gave lent money to Oligarchs to buy Russia in US name

Why destroy Russia when you thought you HAD IT

But you didn't account Putin into your equations

Now your precious oligarchs are all but gone

BS!!!!

Putin is one, and so are all of his buddies.

What's putin worth right now? Tens if billions?

What was he worth when he came to power? A million maybe a couple of million?

Im from America and your full of shat. Take all that money the military gets and you end homelessness, you end hunger, you end crumbling infrastucture, you end a whole hell of alot of things. It makes me sick to my stomach that MY country is the way it is. Somewhere along the line we became the worlds police. Self appointed I beleive.. I am sick to death of the commercials about vets, and joining and a world force for good. If we keep our arse at home and took care of our own border..we would'nt have an illegals problem...and that war money sure as hell would take care of those poor people you spoke of. I'm as patriotic as the next guy, but I'm sick of my country thinking their shat don't stink. It does, just like everybody else's.

a reply to: Sremmos80

a reply to: crazyewok

NOPE I know there are AT LEAST 3 people in each place who are ABSOLUTELY indespensable to the future of HUMAN existance,until we find them we will HAVE to protect as many innocents as we can from our NUT ball leaders.

"Best of us" my ass

a reply to: openyourmind1262

not self appointed world police it was thrust upon us because without us there would have been no victory in WWII for the Allied forces, and we would be in a world ran by the Axis forces.

What would the world be like if Germany and its Axis won WWII?

a reply to: MensaIT3

WILL you PLEASE kindly send an alien over to my residence ?

NOW please.

a reply to: Sremmos80

YOPU TOO?

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Ensinger23

I for one am glad we have our fingers in deep. Makes for quick theater arrival. It insures a presence amongst our enemy's, and help further western interests. Yes admittedly sometimes at the sacrafice of moral compass for strategy. In that way I don't like it but it is what it is and we can't change it.

The world would be a hell of a lot safer if the US stopped meddling where they are not wanted. Enemies... yeah, invade a country and they surely will become your enemies.

"quick theater arrival" ... seriously? You still playing Risk? Only no minds couldn't correlate the use of the word theatre as propaganda. It sounds so fun... just like in the movies! Not.

Excuse me..read your history. Standard Oil basicly funded the Nazi war machine. Witnout Standard Oils Additive's, the Nazi war machine would have ground to a halt. Those numbers on those POW, well those were IBM numbers because IBM made the machine that keep up with all that. Both of those are AMERICAN companies. Not to mention the fact IBM sent folks to calabrate the machines, DURING THE WAR. So I stand by my statement that AMERICA is the SELF APPOINTED WORLDS POLICE... a reply to: ChesterJohn

a reply to: openyourmind1262

you may be correct but it was expected of us after WWII and the formation of the UN. We give the largest contribution to the UN and they expect us to have the Largest roll in world policing.

I hope china is up for the Job because we will no longer be the power we were and we are weakening daily under our current administration.

a reply to: igloo

Maybe you MIGHT need to check around..www.stripes.com...