How many soldiers the USA currently has on foreign soil?

[Adam]

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

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=17475

 

[GENIERE]

Not as many as China has in Tibet.

 

[Adam]

Not as many as China has in Tibet.

Incorrect.

 

[russ_watters]

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]

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.

 

[member 5645]

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]

Read: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index

 

[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 don't have to pay for their own defense.

 

[member 5645]

Read: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index

I guess, since you are going there already...
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Internet-troll

 

[member 5645]

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

 

[schwarzchildradius]

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]

I guess, since you are going there already...
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Internet-troll

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Pathetic.

 

[member 5645]

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?

 

[russ_watters]

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

 

[Tsu]

Mercinaries?

Mercenaries. (No such word as 'mercinaries' - at least that my dictionary says)

 

[Adam]

What seems to be the nature of your distress?

Why do you assume I am distressed?

 

[russ_watters]

Why do you assume I am distressed?

Historical precedent.

 

[russ_watters]

I should have answered this one before:

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.

 

[member 5645]

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 :)

 

[Adam]

Historical precedent.

Interesting idea. Can you support this assertion?

 

[Adam]

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.

 

[Adam]

Not particularly. Are you?

 

[Tsu]

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

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=17475

Probably enough to fill approximately 5 (out of 32) U.S football stadiums (each with a seating capacity of about 65,000).

 

[Tsu]

Not particularly. Are you?

Well, then - again, what's the point of this thread??

 

[member 5645]

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

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

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.

 

[Adam]

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.

 

[Adam]

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.

 

[jimmy p]

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.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

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.

 

[member 5645]

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.

 

[member 5645]

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

 

[Adam]

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?

 

[Adam]

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

Which statement in this thread was worthless? Why do you consider it so? And do you ever do anything other than ad hominems?

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[jimmy p]

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.