Should our Armed forces move towards a more humanitarian role?

[dead0man]

We could cut deals with our friends in NATO that operate bases in Europe for refueling, it's not like they don't know how to refuel American aircraft over there.  Refueling isn't the issue as we can and do, do that from the air.  Keeping F15s/F16s and divisions of Marines closer to where we may need them is the big benefit.

(aircraft carriers don't need to be refueled being nuclear powered and all.  The jets do of course, but they do it from other ships in the fleet.  An aircraft carrier fleet doesn't need to "port" for years at a time, by design.  They do, obviously, but they don't need to.)

[dead0man]

how much of our fleet is nuclear powered, and secondly they still stop off in order resupply.

All the carriers and (most?) Subs.  The carriers can run for years without ever needing to "refuel".  The support ships stop and get fresh supplies, the carriers never have to leave the deep sea if there is a need to avoid doing that.

[dead0man]

I'm pretty sure we do it a lot anyway.  Navy vessels go to areas of natural disaster all the time.  The Army and Air Force bring in supplies all the time.