AIBU to think overseas American and UK bases should close?

Do you not understand how NATO works, and collective defence?

What did you do to be interned?

Of course Northern Ireland is part of the UK. However the person that I was replying to repeatedly stated that it was part of Britain - which is patently untrue.

There were British military bases in what became the Republic of Ireland. Past tense. And they were used for brutalising the locals - ever heard of the Black and Tans?

Maybe some basic reading comprehension skills are in order?

@Sillycake why are you posting AI slop all over this thread?

You were imprisoned and tortured? In 1971? That's terrible.

Not only detained without trial but in some cases tortured.

The relevant question still stands unanswered: which global superpower/hegemon has been more humane than the US?

British? USSR? France? Spain? Ottomans? Rome? Mongols?

Which would be better? China? The UN? Which others do you have in mind?

Or if you think no “world police”, are you expecting that to lead to a more peaceful world?

So basically op @Weemammy21 not a great idea

In short: Overall worse for the rest of the world, though with important nuances, mixed effects by region/timeframe, and legitimate arguments on both sides.

A full US withdrawal and isolation (closing all overseas bases plus ending alliances/interventions and minimizing global engagement) would likely increase instability, conflict risks, economic disruptions, and humanitarian costs for most countries outside the US, outweighing the gains in sovereignty and reduced "blowback" for some hosts. This assessment draws from mainstream analyses (e.g., RAND, Brookings, CFR) and restraint perspectives (e.g., Quincy Institute, Cato), which agree more on the destabilizing risks than on net benefits.

Balanced Overall Assessment and Implications
The aftereffects tilt negative for global stability: Power vacuums favor aggressors (China/Russia/Iran/NK), proliferation risks nuclear multipolarity, and economic/human costs cascade (higher wars, refugees, inequality).

Historical parallels (1930s isolation, post-1970s retrenchments, 2021 Afghanistan) show allies adapt unevenly—more spending/cooperation but capability gaps and risky behaviors (nuclear pursuits). Some positives exist: Sovereignty for hosts, reduced anti-US radicalization, potential diplomacy focus, and environmental/local gains.

However, evidence (RAND historical analyses, IISS costing, Quincy critiques) indicates net harm—world becomes "more dangerous" with higher conflict probability, as US absence doesn't eliminate threats but removes the balancer. Full isolation amplifies this beyond base closures alone.

Reforms (selective drawdowns, burden-sharing) would mitigate far better than total retreat. In a multipolar 2026+ era, the world loses the post-1945 stabilizer without a ready replacement.

Regional Breakdowns: Uneven Impacts

• Europe: Highest immediate risk—Russian advances, €100B+ rearmament burden, NATO fracture. Germany/Poland most exposed; Scandinavia gains from Finland/Sweden integration but loses US intel. Long-term: Stronger EU but fragmented security.
• Asia-Pacific: Taiwan crisis probable; South Korea/Japan nuclear temptation; China dominates trade routes. Southeast Asia: More Chinese influence, South China Sea militarization. Australia (AUKUS) isolated.
• Middle East/Gulf: Iran unchecked; oil wars, Saudi-Pakistan pivot. Israel faces solo threats; no US mediation.
• Africa/Latin America/Global South: Proxy conflicts rise (less counter-ISIS/terrorism); reduced aid/investment; China fills via Belt & Road (with strings). Latin America: Less Monroe Doctrine enforcement, more Russian/Chinese footholds.
• UK-specific ripple: Bases close or downsize (e.g., Bahrain joint ops); global projection shrinks, economy hit by trade instability (UK trade-dependent).

Humanitarian, Political, and Social Aftereffects: Mixed Sovereignty Gains vs. Widespread Instability

• Short-term: Reduced US interventions mean fewer civilian casualties from strikes/drones—but also unchecked atrocities (e.g., no Kosovo-style halts). Refugee surges from new conflicts (millions from Europe/Asia/Middle East). UK hosts (Cyprus) see local tensions ease but lose economic boosts.
• Medium-term: Political realignments—Europe federalizes faster (EU army push); Global South tilts toward China/Russia for security/investment. Human rights: Mixed—strategic hosts saw no improvement under US presence; non-strategic ones might liberalize without pressure. Social: Base-adjacent communities gain (less noise/pollution/crime) but lose jobs/infrastructure.
• Long-term: Weaker international institutions (UN, WTO sidelined); rise of authoritarian spheres erodes democracy promotion. Positive: Less "offensive militarism" normalizes non-intervention norms in some views. Negative: Higher global deaths from conflict (historical isolation enabled WWII-scale losses). Migration waves strain Europe/Asia; inequality widens as stable powers (US homeland) detach while others fragment.

Economic Aftereffects: Trade Disruptions, Inflation, and Slower Global Growth
US bases/alliances underpin sea-lane security (90% global trade via chokepoints) and dollar reserve status. Isolation disrupts this without immediate US savings translating globally.

• Short-term: Oil/energy shocks—Hormuz/Malacca disruptions spike prices 20–50%+ (per modeling of Gulf conflicts). Shipping insurance skyrockets; supply chains (semiconductors from Taiwan, rare earths from China) fracture. Global inflation surges; stock markets tumble on uncertainty. UK/Europe face energy crises (Nord Stream parallels without US LNG backstop).
• Medium-term: Allies' rearmament diverts budgets (Europe: defense spending doubles in places but crowds out welfare/infrastructure). Investment flees unstable regions; poorer nations lose security umbrellas that attracted FDI (host-country studies show US presence boosted trade/growth via perceived stability). Dollar weakens slightly (tariffs/isolationism accelerate de-dollarization); China/Russia push alternatives (BRICS currencies). Global GDP hit: estimates imply trillions lost from instability (Taiwan war alone: $10T+). Positive: Some hosts redirect base rents/jobs domestically; reduced US "subsidies" forces efficiency.
• Long-term: Slower globalization; fragmented blocs (China-led Eurasia, EU fortress Europe). Poorer Global South suffers most—less aid, more proxy conflicts disrupt agriculture/mining. Nuanced benefit: Less US-driven "forever wars" frees resources for domestic development in ex-hosts; environmental gains (base pollution cleanup in Philippines/Germany). But overall welfare loss: Post-1945 growth boom (trade liberalization under US order) reverses toward 1930s-style autarky vulnerabilities.

say america leaves the world to it heres what happens :
Security and Military Aftereffects: Power Vacuums, Proliferation, and Escalated Regional Conflicts
The US forward presence has deterred major aggression since 1945 (no great-power war, "long peace"). Its removal removes the "tripwire" (e.g., US troops in South Korea/Germany) and rapid-response hubs (Ramstein airbase, Al Udeid), shifting burdens instantly.

• Short-term: Immediate vacuums trigger probes/tests. Russia accelerates European incursions (beyond Ukraine into Baltics/Poland if NATO fractures). China blockades or invades Taiwan (or escalates South China Sea). North Korea tests South Korea/Japan. Iran dominates Gulf shipping (Strait of Hormuz disruptions). Counterterrorism weakens globally (post-Afghanistan ISIS resurgence pattern amplified); no US-led coalitions for disaster response or evacuations. UK bases (Cyprus, Bahrain) lose logistical support, forcing UK retrenchment and exposing sovereign areas (Falklands/Gibraltar) to opportunistic claims.
• Medium-term: Allies rearm but face gaps. Europe: NATO effectively dissolves or becomes "Europe-only"—IISS estimates €12–100B+ annual extra costs per major power just to plug US capability shortfalls (airlift, intel, munitions); slow industrial ramp-up leaves vulnerabilities (e.g., no equivalent to US THAAD redeployments). Japan/South Korea boost conventional forces but strain economies; historical retrenchment cases show allies prioritize nuclear options under vulnerability (e.g., 1970s South Korea pursued weapons until US pressure). Proliferation risk surges: Japan, South Korea, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Taiwan, even Vietnam/Philippines could acquire nukes within 5–10 years (20–30 countries potentially, per geopolitical modeling). Adversaries fill gaps: China militarizes Belt & Road; Russia expands "sphere" in Europe/Central Asia.
• Long-term: Multipolar instability returns to pre-WWII patterns (wars of conquest normalized). Regional hegemons dominate (China in Asia, Russia in Eurasia, Iran in Middle East). Global norms erode (UN less enforceable without US veto/leadership). Positive nuance: Reduced "blowback"—fewer bases as militant recruiting tools (e.g., Saudi sites cited by al-Qaeda) or resentment drivers; hosts like Okinawa or Djibouti gain sovereignty, cutting local crime/prostitution spikes tied to US presence. However, without US deterrence, ethnic conflicts/genocides rise (Rwanda 1994 parallel without intervention capacity). UK: Loses expeditionary reach, accelerating decline as middle power; shared sites (Ascension Island) revert fully national but under-resourced.

Edge cases: Nuclear escalation risk (e.g., unchecked Russia-China axis tests US homeland via proxies). Cyber/pandemic threats amplify without allied intel-sharing. Some hosts (strategically vital ones) see human rights worsen without US leverage; others improve via autonomy.

Bin Laden received training from a CIA operative - Ali Mohamed.

Yes I totally agree with you - let’s leave ourselves utterly defenceless against the rising threat from China/Russia etc that would be a brilliant idea 🤨

The bases certainly imported crime in Japan, there has been a string of rapes and other sexual assaults committed by US personnel on local women and girls in Okinawa.

They didn’t fund bin laden, he comes from a billionaire family (construction money). They funded the numhadeen. Taliban is a Pakistani creation.

Someone told me Israel created isis the other day. I do love a good conspiracy theory.

Are they? Because I’m actually in the gulf right now, no the bases do not bring all this stuff you are talking about, there were mass movements of patriot missiles etc into the gulf before this kicked off and most of these countries do actually have their own armies and airforces. There are also Ukrainians being extremely helpful.

What is fractured is the arab league and the relationship between Pakistan and the uae. Most countries are functioning as normal with a little bit of strain. The leadership is not blaming the USA or Israel (despite great hostility towards Israel) it is very much about Iran being completely unreasonable.

I seriously doubt you know anything about the middle east apart from what you see on tiktok.

The one good thing is that the Senate saw the writing on the wall and banned him from doing that without permission in the NDAA 2024. More recently two senators have introduced the bipartisan NATO Unity Protection bill.

With allies like that, who needs enemies?

They very much are a theocracy, the "Christian Right" have a massive amount of influence. Trump might not be a believer but he's only the monkey, the organ grinders who came up with Project 2025 certainly believe. It's a theocracy trying to remove rights from women. Look at what some military officers were telling their men on the outbreak of the war against Iran. Some of the nutters seriously want to trigger "the rapture" they believe is coming.

They've shot several protestors - some fatally, some with life-changing injuries. OK, not the numbers the Iranians have shot but still lives taken regardless of their 1st Amendment rights. They went straight in with the lies when they did so, luckily the narrative quickly went against them when they threatened to restrict people's rights under the 2nd Amendment. The freedom of the press is seriously under threat. Much of the media has been bought up by the oligarchs, while agencies are refused access to White House press conferences if they don't toe the official line. Fox News makes DPRK state propaganda look normal by comparison. The Supreme Court has been heavily stacked on a partisan basis and loyalists are being installed in lower courts. Trump previously incited an attempted coup d'etat and has been doing his best to corrupt the electoral process - as if there wasn't already heavy voter suppression in red states. The corruption, embezzlement and insider trading are off of the charts - it's like a banana republic. The Pentagon has just threatened the Vatican, for goodness sake. If not a rogue state then why behaving like one?

I'm not sure what Trump is trying to do with Russia and DPRK and suspect he doesn't really know either
He's a puppet, why would he know? What we do know is that any time that he does start getting serious with Russia he gets a phone call from Vladimir (whose aides have been coached on how to manipulate Trump by Witkoff) and hey presto, TACO. And now the Iran war has hugely benefitted Putin. If he wasn't a Russian asset, what would he do differently?

The question is whether we should want the US to withdraw from all its overseas bases, i.e. to cease to be a global power.
What may happen to Taiwan is a concern. Russia Is not. The US hasn't been doing anything serious to counter them in Ukraine for the last year and Russia is currently losing there. The only thing Russia has got left to threaten the rest of Europe with are nukes and hybrid warfare. Britain and France can keep the nukes at bay by promising Mutually Assured Destruction and I don't see how the US removing itself from Ramstein will make Russia's cyber warfare and election interference any worse. Heck, JD Vance has just been in Hungary to interfere in the elections there - for the pro-Putin candidate!

It's important to realise though, that if Trump takes the US out of NATO (which would prove legally difficult) the US will find themselves without a great deal of shared intelligence.

Trump is a bully and a fool. The US Intelligence services are not stupid. They will not support an exit from NATO.

Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.

There are no UK military bases in the Republic of Ireland. The closest you'll find is the RAF providing intercept services to the Republic of Ireland's airspace, at the behest of the Irish.

Are you drunk OP?

Isn't it up to the countries?

So if we have an airbase in another country, if they want us to go away, they can tell us that. Why would we close voluntarily?