AIBU to think overseas American and UK bases should close?

[Weemammy21]

AIBU for thinking now is the time for overseas American and UK bases to be closed? America has repeatedly abused their overseas bases to start wars with countries just to plunder and steal their natural resources, murder innocent civilians and kidnap and kill leaders of other countries. America is doing what is best for America and not helping the countries they start war with so should a serious discussion not be started about closing down all American and UK overseas bases that are used to hold and torture innocent civilians that they could not legally detain in America? Who voted for America to be the world's policeman with a lunatic running it and using his wars to fill his and his cronies coffers.

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.

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 🤨

@GeneralPeter I doubt all the innocent people held without trial in Guantanamo naval base would describe the US military as humane

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

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.

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.

Edge cases: If full autarky (trade retreat), worldwide stagflation/depression risk; climate/pandemic cooperation collapses (no US-led funds/tech).

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.

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).

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.

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.

So basically op @Weemammy21 not a great idea

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?

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

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

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?

What did you do to be interned?

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

@steff13 your ridiculing the UK governments use of internment and abuse of their bases to torture Irish citizens says it all. A serious discussion needs to held about US and UK bases being in other countries especially when there is a total lunatic is making the decisions to start wars, steal oil Venezuela and keep the profits instead of the money being used for Venezuela citizens. Trump has claimed he wants to steal Irans oil as well. US and UK bases need to only have bases in their own countries.

Seriously???? This is like asking "What did you do to be raped?".

Have a word with yourself.

I wasn't ridiculing. You said your source was yourself. Thus, I thought you had been detained/tortured.

But not now, or in the memory of anyone living. The black and tans were 1920s

How is that relevant now?

@Quine0nline wind your neck in. Irish citizens didn't need to do anything to be interned. The British military could arrest, hold and torture innocent Irish citizens and no justification was needed.

The same way as innocent Palestinians, Lebanese and Iranians don't need to do anything to be murdered by American ammunition. Mass murder is occurring every day due to the US arms industry and Europe and other countries needs to wake up, drastically increase their spending on defence and defend their own borders and mind their own business in future.

The US is a global power.

So what you are really calling for is massive rearmament all over the world.

The core question of this thread is whether that makes the world safer or less safe.

(Incidentally, a US rollback would probably be extremely good news for US arms manufacturers, as well as all other arms manufacturers).

With the US acting as judge and executioner with lunatic Trump in charge then a start needs to be made in closing all US and UK overseas bases as these bases are being used as a launchpad for starting wars, plundering poorer countries natural resources and mass murder. I would like to see a real discussion on closing down overseas bases and hopefully it won't be too long before that occurs as Trump is now saying he's going to do that. The US have used these bases for getting away with murder, literally. Take the Harry Dunn case as just one example that the public knows about. The US acting as the world's policeman with a completely insane person in charge is something that can not continue be accepted when their actions in multiple countries has made the world a much less safe place and Trump using it for him and his cronies to profiteer with Tony Blair being first in line for his Board of Peace!