Military Bases

[Tidewater_Wave]

Should we be closing military bases that we no longer use? I think this is one area we can cut costs on defense.

[ChairmanSanchez]

Should we be closing military bases that we no longer use? I think this is one area we can cut costs on defense.

Yes. A Soviet (or as of today, Russian) invasion of West Germany is not a threat in 2012. We never should of put those bases in Europe (and around the world) to begin with in the Cold War, but now that its over, we should close them.

[Redalgo]

Absolutely. Good way to tighten the federal government's belt a bit without depriving the people of core benefits and services. It may also give two added bonuses: a reduced capacity for going off to war when it is not a matter of utmost urgency, and help encourage a return to a multi-polar global order, both of which may help the United States improve its reputation abroad after a number of years and free up resources to use for other purposes. The down side would be the jobs lost but I am not really in a good position to propose how to deal with that.

[London Man]

Absolutely. Good way to tighten the federal government's belt a bit without depriving the people of core benefits and services. It may also give two added bonuses: a reduced capacity for going off to war when it is not a matter of utmost urgency, and help encourage a return to a multi-polar global order, both of which may help the United States improve its reputation abroad after a number of years and free up resources to use for other purposes.

A multi-polar global order isn't in my opinion a good thing. Take a look at the number of people who died in the wars of the Cold War and you'll see where I'm coming from.

[Redalgo]

Please pardon my rambling a bit on the subject... but during the Cold War there was a bipolar order in which the USA and USSR could not directly engage each other. So they had a very strong interest to establish puppet regimes, exert strong influences on other countries, and try to attack or at least undermine the stability of nations under the influence of the other superpower in hopes of later capturing said nations into their own sphere of influence. This was a very dangerous situation because both superpowers would take part in brinksmanship to defensively posture, to the effect that each country appeared to be very aggressive and imperialistic to the other. This provoked an unnecessary buildup of arms that wasted valuable resources and took the superpowers to the very edge of mutual annihilation despite the desire of folks in those nations to be at peace with their adversary and not strike first.

Without two superpowers, however - as has arguably been the case with the United States since the 1990s - there is a temptation to achieve global hegemony and quell threats to its continued status of unrivaled power. That is not to say the U.S. is in a position to do whatever it wants around the world, and it is worth noting that a lot of other powers have considerable influence over the States, but it may be fair to say that few nations are in a good position to sway American policy when the U.S. government is sufficiently determined. As things are, the U.S. gets way too much say in what happens around the world, maintains an enormous military budget, and unintentionally attracts a lot of resentment in certain parts of the world, for the United States can easily get away with exploiting other nations, meddling in their affairs, and being hypocritical in some of its policies. It is unhealthy for there to be one superpower, and so would be a return to the bipolar order in the form of a rivalry with China.

Yes, a multi-polar (3+) order is prone to warring because for the realist there is an interest in each nation to maneuver into short-lived, opportunistic alliances meant to check the power of rivals that threaten to dominate their opponents, but it does not encourage wars that aim for the complete domination of other countries or annexation of vast amounts of territory since the most potent countries in such an order tend to get ganged up against by an alliance of others so as to better preserve a delicate balance of power between them. It is also worth noting that economic globalization and advances in technology have made it much costlier for major powers to war against each other, which is perhaps in part why most wars Western nations have participated in since the 1990s have been against Third World opponents who stand little chance of defeating invaders through sheer strength of arms or forms of harmful economic retaliation.

A decline in American power is beneficial to humanity, in my opinion, because it would make it much harder for the U.S. to do what it wants in other parts of the world unilaterally. It could chip away, bit by bit, at its dogged attachment to preserving sovereignty and help nudge the country in the direction of being more collaborative and diplomatic in its dealings - whether on matters pertinent to trade, peace, war, or other matters of interest. I desire a global order in which all countries work together for mutual gains rather than what we have right now, which is an arrangement where the strong generally can and often do prey upon the weak at their discretion with all sorts of nasty long-term consequences. To be fair, things are not all fire and brimstone right now, but I do think it could be made a lot better.

[London Man]

We've had multi-polar worlds before and they've all resulted in a big war of some sort by miscalculation. If one could argue the Cold War had multi-polar elements (OPEC, the colonial empires and the PRC), then it was only the collapse of the Soviet Union had prevented a war through miscalculation.

Take a look at the world before 1914 - that was a multi-polar powder keg (although one could argue it was heading bi-polar).

[Redalgo]

Aye, the shifting alliances had a tendency to draw many countries into conflicts with terrible results that would have otherwise probably been one-on-one disputes. I think changes in the economy have made a recreation of that dynamic less likely than in the past but I actually did completely overlook the involvement of other power blocs during the Cold War. If I may ask for the sake of considering a new position, what kind of arrangement of geopolitical power would you consider preferable and why? Also, do you think the States should hang onto many of its bases abroad?

[London Man]

The global economy is actually still less open than it was in 1914.

As for arrangement of power, while untrammelled US influence would be a problem, I can't see an existing regime I'd want with more power. I'm happy with the status quo, more or less. As for US bases, if the locals want them and the US wants them, then I'm happy.