View Poll Results: Do you know how many soldiers the USA currently has on foreign soil?
50,000 in 25 countries. 1 5.26%
100,000 in 50 countries. 2 10.53%
200,000 in 100 countries. 5 26.32%
400,000 in 135 countries. 11 57.89%
Voters: 19. You may not vote on this poll

Register to reply

How many soldiers the USA currently has on foreign soil?

by Adam
Tags: foreign, numbers, soil, soldiers
Share this thread:
Adam
#1
Apr2-04, 11:22 AM
P: 454
Do you know how many soldiers the USA currently has on foreign soil?

http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=17475
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Sapphire talk enlivens guesswork over iPhone 6
Geneticists offer clues to better rice, tomato crops
UConn makes 3-D copies of antique instrument parts
GENIERE
#2
Apr2-04, 10:36 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 288
Not as many as China has in Tibet.
Adam
#3
Apr3-04, 05:50 AM
P: 454
Quote Quote by GENIERE
Not as many as China has in Tibet.
Incorrect.

russ_watters
#4
Apr3-04, 11:21 AM
Mentor
P: 22,237
How many soldiers the USA currently has on foreign soil?

I thought we discussed this once before. Anyway, the US has a large number of troops in the Gulf and large permanent bases in Germany. The vast majority of our foreign deployed troops are in those two areas. The vast majority of countries that have US troops stationed in them have only a small Marine Corps detachment at the US Embassy (shall I argue that if they are at the embassy, they're not actually in the country? ....naaa, I'll let that one go).
Adam
#5
Apr3-04, 12:16 PM
P: 454
The top scores, according to the US military's "ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS BY REGIONAL AREA AND BY COUNTRY (309A)
December 31, 2002"
:

Europe: 117,401
East Asia & Pacific: 96,289
North Africa: 13,697
Cuba & Honduras: 1,060

Total in foreign counties: 237,473.
The US recognises 192 countries, and has personnel posted in 135 of them.
237,473 divided by 135: 1,759 military personnel per country.

South Korea has only 38,725.
Germany has 72,000.

Since this report there have been a further 150,000 to 200,000 troops deployed on foreign soil.
phatmonky
#6
Apr3-04, 12:24 PM
P: 1,528
Quote Quote by Adam

Since this report there have been a further 150,000 to 200,000 troops deployed on foreign soil.
Yes, let's mix in Iraq and AFghanistan in a post that is blatently aimed towards you complaining of New world order, US imperialism, or PNAC. No difference between people deployed in Germany and those that are being rotated through Iraq
Adam
#7
Apr3-04, 01:33 PM
P: 454
Read: http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...dex.html#index
motai
#8
Apr3-04, 03:15 PM
motai's Avatar
P: 496
Rather interesting that the U.S. still has many stationed troops in Europe even though the threat of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact is gone. I guess they are doing their allies a favor so they dont have to pay for their own defense.
phatmonky
#9
Apr4-04, 03:11 AM
P: 1,528
I guess, since you are going there already.....
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Internet-troll
phatmonky
#10
Apr4-04, 03:13 AM
P: 1,528
Quote Quote by motai
Rather interesting that the U.S. still has many stationed troops in Europe even though the threat of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact is gone. I guess they are doing their allies a favor so they dont have to pay for their own defense.

This has been discussed bu Rumsfeld, and while everyone seems to think it's so bad that our troops are in Germany, the Germans aren't ready for us to move out (economic collapse of two cities during a recession). It's a politically sensitive situation, but I'm happy to have them move on to where they are more needed
schwarzchildradius
#11
Apr4-04, 04:03 AM
schwarzchildradius's Avatar
P: 179
Quote Quote by phatmonky
This has been discussed bu Rumsfeld, and while everyone seems to think it's so bad that our troops are in Germany, the Germans aren't ready for us to move out (economic collapse of two cities during a recession). It's a politically sensitive situation, but I'm happy to have them move on to where they are more needed
Discussed by Rumsfeld? It must make sense. Germany is where US casualties in Iraq usually end up. It's a no-go for reporters now days. I like this part though:
mix in Iraq and AFghanistan in a post that is blatently aimed towards you complaining of New world order, US imperialism, or PNAC. No difference between people deployed in Germany and those that are being rotated through Iraq
What's wrong with summarizing US troop deployments worldwide? So we can face the truth about how weakened our military has become because of un-planned overextention in Iraq. Not budgeted either. This is an extremely reckless act that has resulted in high casualties for Iraqis and US soldiers as well as mercenaries. Mercenaries are hired to hide the true cost in American human lives.
Adam
#12
Apr4-04, 06:53 AM
P: 454
Quote Quote by phatmonky
I guess, since you are going there already.....
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Internet-troll
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html

Pathetic.
phatmonky
#13
Apr4-04, 10:13 AM
P: 1,528
Right, so when are you going to prove me a wrong and put a point to this thread, outside of your standard "imperialism" fare?
russ_watters
#14
Apr5-04, 01:13 AM
Mentor
P: 22,237
Quote Quote by phatmonky
Hey, I didn't notice that before. Musta just come in after the software upgrade. That emoticon has been sorely needed around here.
Rather interesting that the U.S. still has many stationed troops in Europe even though the threat of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact is gone. I guess they are doing their allies a favor so they dont have to pay for their own defense.
Actually, it goes far beyond even that. We aren't closing the bases in Germany for the same reason we have so much trouble closing bases here: it'll destroy the local economy.
Mercenaries
Mercenaries?


typo fixed
Tsu
#15
Apr5-04, 02:28 AM
PF Gold
Tsu's Avatar
P: 638
Quote Quote by russ_watters
Mercinaries?
Mercenaries. (No such word as 'mercinaries' - at least that my dictionary says)
Adam
#16
Apr5-04, 05:03 AM
P: 454
Quote Quote by Michael D. Sewell
What seems to be the nature of your distress?
Why do you assume I am distressed?
russ_watters
#17
Apr5-04, 12:01 PM
Mentor
P: 22,237
Quote Quote by Adam
Why do you assume I am distressed?
Historical precedent.
russ_watters
#18
Apr5-04, 12:05 PM
Mentor
P: 22,237
I should have answered this one before:
Quote Quote by schwarzchildradius
What's wrong with summarizing US troop deployments worldwide?
I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before (if not here, I've had it other places). The purpose of the stats is shock value and the natural next question (from the person shocked) is: 'why do we need so many troops in so many places?' The answer is far more mundane than the initial poster would prefer.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Irrational numbers vs. Transcendental numbers General Math 10
A new set of numbers as a z-Axis to imaginary and real numbers? General Math 9
Line of real numbers-transcendental numbers General Math 11
Irrational numbers depends on rational numbers existence General Math 0