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

  • Thread starter Adam
  • Start date

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

  • 50,000 in 25 countries.

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • 100,000 in 50 countries.

    Votes: 2 10.5%
  • 200,000 in 100 countries.

    Votes: 5 26.3%
  • 400,000 in 135 countries.

    Votes: 11 57.9%

  • Total voters
    19
G

GENIERE

Not as many as China has in Tibet.
 
16
0
GENIERE said:
Not as many as China has in Tibet.
Incorrect.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,589
4,822
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).
 
16
0
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:
 
338
2
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.
 
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 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
 
S

schwarzchildradius

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.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,589
4,822
phatmonky said:
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
 
Last edited:

Tsu

Gold Member
353
63
russ_watters said:
Mercinaries?
Mercenaries. (No such word as 'mercinaries' - at least that my dictionary says)
 
16
0
Michael D. Sewell said:
What seems to be the nature of your distress?
Why do you assume I am distressed?
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,589
4,822
Adam said:
Why do you assume I am distressed?
Historical precedent.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,589
4,822
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.
 
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 :)
 
16
0
russ_watters said:
Historical precedent.
Interesting idea. Can you support this assertion?
 
16
0
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.
 
16
0
Not particularly. Are you?
 

Tsu

Gold Member
353
63
Adam said:
Not particularly. Are you?
Well, then - again, what's the point of this thread??
 
Last edited:
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.
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top