CreateDebate


Debate Info

20
21
Yes, most or all. No,we still need them.
Debate Score:41
Arguments:17
Total Votes:55
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, most or all. (8)
 
 No,we still need them. (9)

Debate Creator

AngeloDeOrva(298) pic



Should the United States Eliminate Its European Military Bases?

Military, empire, defense, war, peace,

Yes, most or all.

Side Score: 20
VS.

No,we still need them.

Side Score: 21
4 points

What reason is there to keep them? Russia isn't going to attack any European nation especially ones which are part of the EU or allied with the US. Also the European nations are stronger now and under the EU even more capable to defend against any smaller nation.

Keeping bases in Europe stretches our troops and adds a presence that not everyone wants. Just because the leaders of the nations want a US military base doesn't mean the citizens want it. As much as some would like to believe the US isn't appoint from some Higher power to defend the world.

Also the US would consider it an insult and security issue if another nation were to even suggest placing one of their military bases in America, so why should America have a higher status among other nations such that it can create bases without true resistance?

Alleviating the pressure US military bases create and further concentrating our troops closer to home, or in areas where real trouble exists is more beneficial to everyone involved.

Side: Yes, most or all.
3 points

I believe the US should become like Switzerland. No other country has military bases in the United States. We wouldn't permit that! Yet we believe we can have military bases in other countries.

This WWII and Cold War mentality have drained our treasury, cost the lives of our service men and women and created a contempt for the US that has replaced admiration for our freedom and opportunity.

We don't need to be the world policeman.

Close all the bases overseas, tell other countries that we won't interfere in their internal disputes and if any other country messes with us, we will retaliate.

The risk? I believe we will reduce our risk of attack because, like Switzerland, we won't be as provocative.

We save money, we regain respect, we can be proud of America.

Side: Yes, most or all.
3 points

There is no need for military bases in Europe. At this point in time, any conflict between European nation-states is highly unlikely due to the formation of the EU, which ties the economies of Europe together. If there is a terror attack in Europe, they can deal with it -- they aren't as weak as they were before, plus they know how to deal with terror attacks better: ignoring them socially, while furiously working behind the scenes to catch the terrorists.

Side: Yes, most or all.
2 points

I can't think of any real reason why we still have our troops over there. The countries in Europe have there own military to use in case of an attack. Their is no real imminent threat of attack or anything that would justify having troops over their. It costs us a lot of money to keep troops in foreign nations. We also are spreading our forces out way too much and don't have nearly enough to defend our own country.

Side: Yes, most or all.

I am still in the dark as to why we have them there, honestly. The Soviet Union is gone, Russia is barely able to control its own territory, and the European Union has plenty of military capability of its own.

Even if there is still a threat from Russia, "Islamic Fundamentalists", Aliens, The United States, or other aggressive entities I am fairly certain they can be combated just as effectively with far fewer American military bases.

The combined European GDP is about the same as the U.S.'s, perhaps more; it has the money to raise the same military force as the United States (if not the political will).

We don't need to be paying for European defense anymore; the threat isn't as great nor is it shared by both Europe and the United states to the same effect.

Islamic terrorism is hardly a military problem; most of it is espionage and police work. Russia's GDP is far smaller than the EU's; its military is out of date; a sagging, hulking, brittle shell. The Europeans are more than a match for them should trouble arise; though without the U.S. with them their political clout is diminished (somewhat).

Though, who knows, perhaps without the fatherly protection of the US the Europeans may grow a back-bone and seek to solve their own problems for a change. Though, let's hope they don't do it in the traditional European way (dragging each other and the world into massive wars).

Side: Yes, most or all.
2 points

Speaking as a former US Marine, there are many reasons to retain a military presence in tactical locations around the world--including Europe. The foremost is that friendly countries change their minds all the time. In one scuffle country x is our buddy then in the next, country x is on the other side. Europe may have shown to be pro-US for the last 50 years, but that is a negligible amount of time historically.

It's mostly about logistical deployment. Say some ex-Soviet-Bloc country or region gets out of hand and attacks the US embassy there. The US would have to fly half way around the world to rescue civilians--including innocent tourists. With bases in Europe and beyond, the rescue teams can arrive in just a few hours--saving more American lives.

Additionally, the countries who harbor US military personnel gain economically from the business generated as well as can be assured strength should they be attacked or suffer some catastrophe.

The final reason for maintaining bases in Europe has nothing to do with any part of Europe. The military has several intelligence outposts in Europe which are focused on the Mideast, Asia, and Africa. These tools allow America to continue to collect information on terrorist organizations in conjunction with the EU for the safety of all.

Side: Logistics and Intel
Cdelvalle(196) Disputed
0 points

You're assuming that the host country would actually allow the U.S. to make such a deployment over their skies/land.

If we've learned anything it's that many times other countries don't want to be involved in our scuffles.

Also, take a hard look at Germany and the army bases there. They were placed there to keep the peace after WW2. Um, there's peace now. So why not redeploy them somwhere else.. say the middle east?

Lastly, sure we help the economy of Germany, but is it helping ours? Not if the money is spent there. The last thing we should worry about is their economy. Let their own government work on that.

I definitely feel some bases should be eliminated. At the very least, removed from their current location and placed in better areas.

Side: Yes, most or all.
Tamisan(890) Disputed
2 points

"You're assuming that the host country would actually allow the U.S. to make such a deployment over their skies/land."

No, actually I'm AFFIRMING that they let us do so. As part of the "rental agreement" we have the right to fly/hover/drive/pass through their land and air space. Otherwise the base would be pretty much useless

The bases in Germany were not ONLY placed there to keep peace, they were also placed there as tactical central locations.

You may be focused on the US economy, but that's tunnel-vision. We're in a global economy. Ensuring the stability of the EU (including Germany) helps stabilize the global economy and in turn ensures purchases of US items. Of course this breaks down when we talk about China, but that's not the focus of this discussion. ;)

Side: Stability and economics
2 points

Logistics and supply chain are the strongest reasons to keep European military bases. With our own bases, we can rapidly deploy wherever needed, and keep supplies flowing to troops engaged in military activities. It seems strange though that we have bases in Europe and elsewhere in the world, but as far as I know, we have no foreign bases in the US.

Local economic benefits are up to the host nation. If it wasn't in their best interest to have a base, then they wouldn't let us have one. Overall, bases strengthen our strategic position and give us an edge in global conflicts.

Side: Logistics and Intel
Loudacris(912) Disputed
2 points

If logistics and supply chain are the strongest reasons to keep European military bases than wouldn't it behoove efficiency to minimize the number of bases to the optimal number? It is less efficient to have hundreds of small and medium sized bases than to have a dozen or so large ones. Think about how UPS operates in Europe.

Side: Yes, most or all.
Bradf0rd(1428) Disputed
2 points

As a person who's been dealing with logistics for a while now, it's actually better, especially when you're talking about a global scale, to have a little of everything everywhere. Think of it like neurons in a brain, or the nervous system of the body. If you have too much in one place, it would impede the process at which the facility operates, and it would take longer to get quick supplies somewhere if something breaks out and you need near-instant reaction time.

With 'hundreds" of smaller bases, if something happens to where they need more supplies or troops in one region, rather than sending a shitload of reinforcements from one place to the other, you can have every small base send a little of something and it would all arrive without delay or having to deal with air traffic coming and going from the same places.

Also, you would have to have a lot of people stationed at a larger base than a small one to deal with inventory, and that only complicates things. Then you have to deal with a large inventory too, which doesn't help in reflex situations.

If you still don't get it, play starcraft. You always need your outposts, without them you'll be reduced to Zerg food before you get one marine deployed... unless of course you're Protoss... but unfortunately America is not Protoss.

Side: No,we still need them.
2 points

I say no, not because we need them, but because other countries in europe do. I mean, c'mon! We have the most agressive military in the world! If a war breaks out in europe (which they often do) we will be right there to end it ASAP!

Side: No,we still need them.
Cdelvalle(196) Disputed
1 point

It's not America's responsibility or right to stop war in Europe.

THat's what the europeans are supposed to do on their own (unless they want our help and ask for it).

Side: Yes, most or all.
altarion(1955) Disputed
4 points

which is presicely why we should stay. if they request our help don't you think that it'll be quicker if we are already there than if we are back in america?

Side: No,we still need them.

The United States should eliminate any European military bases. We have far exceeded our welcome there. Why do we really need to be there?

Side: No,we still need them.
1 point

Although I do question why the military is there in the first place, to retract them now would be a sign of weakness, and I don't think the US is very keen about that, nor do I think it would be a good thing. The military bases were put there when US were expanding its influences. If we are to remove them, it should be done in a slow and paced manner, when it comes to that.

Side: No,we still need them.