News How many soldiers the USA currently has on foreign soil?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adam
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Soil Usa
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the number of U.S. soldiers stationed on foreign soil, with a focus on troop deployments in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East. It highlights that the U.S. has a significant military presence in the Gulf and Germany, with a total of approximately 237,473 troops in 135 countries. South Korea and Germany host the largest contingents. Participants debate the necessity of these deployments, questioning the rationale behind maintaining troops in Europe post-Cold War and the implications for local economies dependent on U.S. bases. Concerns are raised about the overextension of U.S. military resources due to ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, alongside discussions about the potential economic impact on host nations if U.S. troops were withdrawn. The conversation also touches on broader themes of U.S. foreign policy, military strategy, and the implications of maintaining a global military presence.

Do you know how many soldiers the USA currently has on foreign soil?

  • 50,000 in 25 countries.

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • 100,000 in 50 countries.

    Votes: 2 11.1%

  • 200,000 in 100 countries.

    Votes: 5 27.8%

  • 400,000 in 135 countries.

    Votes: 10 55.6%
  • Total voters
    18
Physics news on Phys.org
Not as many as China has in Tibet.
 
GENIERE said:
Not as many as China has in Tibet.

Incorrect.
 
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).
 
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.
 
Adam said:
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 :rolleyes:
 
Read: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index
 
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 don't have to pay for their own defense.
 
  • #10
motai said:
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 don't 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
 
  • #11
phatmonky said:
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.
 
  • #13
Adam said:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Pathetic.
Right, so when are you going to prove me a wrong and put a point to this thread, outside of your standard "imperialism" fare? :rolleyes:
 
  • #14
phatmonky said:
:rolleyes:
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 don't 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
 
Last edited:
  • #15
russ_watters said:
Mercinaries?
Mercenaries. (No such word as 'mercinaries' - at least that my dictionary says)
 
  • #16
Michael D. Sewell said:
What seems to be the nature of your distress?
Why do you assume I am distressed?
 
  • #17
Adam said:
Why do you assume I am distressed?
Historical precedent.
 
  • #18
I should have answered this one before:
schwarzchildradius said:
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.
 
  • #19
russ_watters said:
I should have answered this one before: 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.


Adam has taken to ignoring all those that dare try to expose the intent of this thread, or wish to debate it. We're on page 2, and yet there is no real point made, and thus I fully agree with your synopsis of the situation :)
 
  • #20
russ_watters said:
Historical precedent.
Interesting idea. Can you support this assertion?
 
  • #21
phatmonky said:
Adam has taken to ignoring all those that dare try to expose the intent of this thread, or wish to debate it. We're on page 2, and yet there is no real point made, and thus I fully agree with your synopsis of the situation :)

1) Thus far, neither you nor anyone else has mentioned my actual intent in starting this thread.

2) I do not ignore anything in this thread.
 
  • #22
Not particularly. Are you?
 
  • #23
  • #24
Adam said:
Not particularly. Are you?
Well, then - again, what's the point of this thread??
 
Last edited:
  • #25
Adam said:
1) Thus far, neither you nor anyone else has mentioned my actual intent in starting this thread.

phatmonky said:
Right, so when are you going to prove me a wrong and put a point to this thread, outside of your standard "imperialism" fare? :rolleyes:


So we are to just sit and poke in the dark? Well, we've been doing that, and your silence is a great agreement to our guesses. great thread as always, Adam.
 
  • #26
Phatmonky, no poking in the dark is required. This thread is not about me, nor is it about my opinions. It is about the numbers of US troops on foreign soil. Knowing my personal reasons is not required.
 
  • #27
Tsunami said:
Well, then - again, what's the point of this thread??

As should be obvious from the opening post of this thread and its attached poll, the point is to discuss the numbers of US troops on foreign soil.
 
  • #28
OK, let's add a swing to this thread. What are the REASONS for such large amounts of US troops in these numerous countries. ESPECIALLY the ones that don't need them there. Actually there is a US base about 5 minutes down my road by the sea. I don't know why it is there, cos there is a British Military port only 10 minutes drive away. Unless the US troops are posted there for training purposes, i don't see the use of them there. Just a waste of money and people IMHO.
 
  • #29
Personally I find it despicable that we have so many troops on foreign soil given the vast number of highly destructive weapons we have in our arsenals. Why risk human lives, unnecessarily? Just build a robot that is capable of driving into a foreign country, drilling for oil, and hauling the oil back out.
 
  • #30
jimmy p said:
OK, let's add a swing to this thread. What are the REASONS for such large amounts of US troops in these numerous countries. ESPECIALLY the ones that don't need them there. Actually there is a US base about 5 minutes down my road by the sea. I don't know why it is there, cos there is a British Military port only 10 minutes drive away. Unless the US troops are posted there for training purposes, i don't see the use of them there. Just a waste of money and people IMHO.


I agree, we should reshape our forces in a manner condusive to aiding in security where it is needed in this new world.
The reason for the remainder of the troops is multiple, depending on the area in which they are.
You've got S Korea, that is obvious. You've got Iraq and afghanistan, obvious.
You've got japan and the phillipines (training, and a quick strike force in response to Korea (and some would argue China))
Forces are in Germany, and while we looked to remove them, there was worry from the German populous about having 2 cities' economies completely wiped out over night.
Then there is the rest, which includes peacekeeping, emabssy protection, training, etc.
The overall goal is security and stability for us and our allies in any region we wish to be part of. You can't have trade and security in a region that is unstable. Stabilization doesn't come with diplomacy alone, and sometimes it doesn't come with diplomacy at all.
 
  • #31
Michael D. Sewell said:
I can't blame Adam for this thread, we were the ones who were foolish enough to waste our time. Best wishes to all.
God Bless America,
Mike

Alas, you are right. Who is stupider? The man who makes a worthless statement, or the man who then is naive enough to debate it :frown:
 
  • #32
You've got S Korea, that is obvious.
Tell me why you think that. And I don't mean "Repeat some government policy for me". What do you believe makes such a deployment necessary?

You've got japan and the phillipines (training, and a quick strike force in response to Korea (and some would argue China))
Again, why Korea? Why China?
 
  • #33
phatmonky said:
Alas, you are right. Who is stupider? The man who makes a worthless statement, or the man who then is naive enough to debate it :frown:

Which statement in this thread was worthless? Why do you consider it so? And do you ever do anything other than ad hominems?
 
  • #34
Adam said:
As should be obvious from the opening post of this thread and its attached poll, the point is to discuss the numbers of US troops on foreign soil.
Lol, Adam. If you didn't have an opinion, you wouldn't have posted the poll.

Yeah, phat - same as always.
 
  • #35
Uh, why would Germany's economy crumble? Methinks a little bit of (no offence) US arrogance is into play here. What are the EU for? what about the Internet? what about all the other huge trade opportunities that are available, i hardly think a rich country like Germany in a rich community (the EU) NEEDS the funds from a few thousand American troops.
 
  • #36
Germany as a whole doesn't, but the little areas around those US bases have lived by supplying them for half a century. To lose them is painful, and "all politics is local." Germany is currently going through an economic downturn, just as the US has been, and the government takes heat there as here when they let a source of income slip away.
 
  • #37
jimmy p said:
Uh, why would Germany's economy crumble?
Like SA said - not the whole German economy, just the towns that the bases are in. Its a huge deal. As in the US, the whole point of getting a seat on the legislature (in practice) is to bring your local politics to a national stage. Even if the town only has 50,000 people, that's 25,000 votors and every one will be pissed if you let them close that base.

Like I said, same reason its so hard to close a base in the US.
 
  • #38
Adam said:
Which statement in this thread was worthless? Why do you consider it so? And do you ever do anything other than ad hominems?



I'm MAKING this thread into an actual worthwhiel thread. Something you failed to do after 2 full pages. :rolleyes:
 
  • #39
I'm still wondering why phatmonky thinks the world is in imminent danger from Korea and China.
 
  • #40
Adam said:
I'm still wondering why phatmonky thinks the world is in imminent danger from Korea and China.

I don't see him saying he thinks the world is in imminent danger from anyone, not even Korea or China...wanna dig that quote up for me? I'm really curious.
 
  • #41
You've got S Korea, that is obvious.
You've got japan and the phillipines (training, and a quick strike force in response to Korea (and some would argue China))
Well, there are the words about Korea and China, and requiring a strike force in response.
 
  • #42
Adam said:
I'm still wondering why phatmonky thinks the world is in imminent danger from Korea and China.

Kat is right. I didn't say that, and for that reason I refuse to jump down your typical straw man road.
 
  • #43
In that case, Phatmonky, please tell me what you meant about Korea and China.
 
  • #44
Adam said:
Well, there are the words about Korea and China, and requiring a strike force in response.
Wow, two incomplete sentences qouted out of context. Wonderful.


hey look - more emoticons: :confused: :confused: :confused: <-me still waiting in vain for a point to this thread.

Adam, do you have an opinion to share or not?
 
  • #45
hey, i thought i made this thread worthwhile... see the last page and we get a LITTLE bit of continuation... jeez
 
  • #46
mer·ce·nar·ies
One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.
 
  • #47
jimmy p said:
hey, i thought i made this thread worthwhile... see the last page and we get a LITTLE bit of continuation... jeez
You made a good swing at it anyway... I think it was a lost cause right from the start though.
 
  • #48
russ_watters said:
Wow, two incomplete sentences qouted out of context. Wonderful.


hey look - more emoticons: :confused: :confused: :confused: <-me still waiting in vain for a point to this thread.

Adam, do you have an opinion to share or not?

Russ_waters, I know it's difficult, but I ask you to remain on topic.
 
  • #49
Adam said:
Russ_waters, I know it's difficult, but I ask you to remain on topic.
I'm still looking for it. If I find it, I'll let you know. :rolleyes:
 
  • #50
So, do you think Bonds will catch Willie Mays tonight?

Njorl
 

Similar threads

International Influence of Cliffhanger Serial Films: Beyond the USA
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Poll Poll
News US Government Arrest Warrant for Iraqi Citizen on Iraqi Soil: Legal Authority?
Replies
23
Views
4K
News Is organic food really linked to a lower risk of cancer?
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Poll Poll
News How much the USA government spends on war?
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Poll Poll
How many PF users are from English-speaking First World countries?
Replies
1
Views
1K
News Should a captured American soldier be executed by the Taliban?
Replies
44
Views
8K
News Why do USA people vote on republicans?
Replies
7
Views
4K
News War on Terror: Examining the Politics & Morality
Replies
9
Views
3K
How Can We Deal w/ Volatile Organic Compounds in Homes?
Replies
10
Views
2K
How Many People Can Perform Quantum Mechanical Calculations?
Replies
10
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top