With so many overseas military bases in the United States, what the real money is paid for is how much military spending these countries have to payThe United States has 374 overseas military bases in more than 140 countries outside the mainland, and more than 300,000 American soldiers are stationed. So why do these countries and regions allow the US military to station troops on their own turf?Who will bear the cost of the military base?
U.S. overseas military bases can be divided into three strategic zones, namely Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, Asia, the Pacific and Indian Oceans, and the North and South Americas. In these three strategic areas, there are a total of 14 base groups, large and small. A total of five base groups have been set up in Europe, divided into two echelons, the first line is held by the Central European base group and the Southern European base group, the core position of Europe.
During the Cold War, this line was the front line against the Soviet Union. The second line consisted of the British base group in Iceland and the base group in the Iberian Peninsula, whose main role was to assist the operations in Central and Northern Europe. The U.S. base group in the Middle East, West Asia, and North Africa spans the three continents of Asia, Europe, and Africa, and controls important shipping points in the Persian Gulf, the Suez Canal, the Red Mediterranean, and the Black Strait.
Among them, Germany is the most important military base center set up by the United States in Europe, while Japan and South Korea are undoubtedly the most important military base centers set up by the United States in the Pacific region, and the US troops stationed in these three countries are the most justifiable. Germany and Japan were defeated countries in World War II, and the presence of U.S. troops in these two countries became an irreversible reality from the day the defeat agreement was signed. And the South Korean garrison is a product of the Korean War. At the signing of the armistice. After that, the U.S. military entered the garrison openly, and South Korea was also willing to do so, so Germany has the largest number of U.S. military bases, and at the same time, some of the U.S. military's ace powerhouses are stationed in the territory, such as the famous U.S. Army's First Mechanized Gliding Infantry Division, the First Armored Division, etc., all of which were sent to Germany to serve, and they not only have high-precision equipment, but also have very rich combat experience.
In the wars in Kosovo and Iraq, these two units have shown their skills in a big way, and it can be said that they have taken great pains to keep an eye on the fierce beast of Germany. In the Asia-Pacific region, Japan and South Korea have the second- and third-largest U.S. military garrisons overseas, respectively. At its peak, there were 148 U.S. military bases in Japan, and although these military bases have since been reduced, the number is still more than 100, and they are all very famous large bases, such as Yokosuka Base, Atsugi Air Base, Space Base, and Futenma Base in Okinawa.
US military bases in South Korea in number. Although it is not as good as Germany and Japan, there are only 41 air bases, and only two are Gunsan and Wushan, but they are not inferior in terms of the size of the garrison. Germany and Japan are largely highly mobile armies, and they are large, and the United States often uses them to flex their muscles. In Europe, the U.S. military radiated out with Germany as the center, while in the western Pacific it radiated with Japan and South Korea as the center. Through the ** base and a series of bases in Southeast Asia, a very strong defense line has been built, controlling the important sea areas and transportation arteries in the Asia-Pacific region. So how much does it cost to these military bases?Who is responsible for the main expenses of these military bases?
It is not easy for such a large and well-organized military base to function normally, and in addition to balancing all the conditions, the most important point is money. U.S. overseas military bases burn extra money, and the costs involved are very detailed, including privately owned land and state ownership. Rent of facilities, construction of the surrounding area, civil security projects, and the cost of operation of the base, etc. In addition to these, there are also facilities and equipment construction, as well as labor costs. Although the United States has ranked first in the world in military spending for many years in a row, it may not be so easy to afford hundreds of military bases overseas.
According to reports, these expenses generally account for only about 1.3 percent of the US military spending of hundreds of billions of dollars. So who will bear the rest of the costs?In fact, it is mainly a measure of apportionment, especially in the representative countries of Germany, Japan and South Korea, which basically bear a considerable part of the cost.
After the end of World War II, Germany had troops stationed in four countries, and after the reunification of Germany in 1990, the Soviet Union withdrew, and the United States took the opportunity to become the largest country stationed in Germany. At present, the United States spends more than $8 billion a year on military spending in Germany, and Germany's share of the cost is only 1200 million US dollars, this figure seems to be a small proportion, but in fact, Germany has compensated the United States, not only through tax exemption and rent exemption, but also to bear part of the construction tasks. However, there has been a dispute between the two countries over military spending, and neither side is satisfied with such a sharing policy. By contrast, Japan is generous, paying about $4 billion a year in military spending for the United States, while also taking preferential measures in many areas, as it has done for decades. Although there are voices of opposition in the country, the official attitude has never wavered. Japan is treated the highest compared to other countries, while South Korea, the third-largest country, has seen a marked shift in military spending.
For a period after the end of the Korean War, South Korea has always been one of the least developed countries in the world, so they were exempted from this fee by the United States, and it was not until they gradually began to share military spending after they became the Asian Tigers with the support of the United States. However, unlike Germany's hardline and Japan's initiative, South Korea has always been very passive in this regard, and every year it raises the proportion of South Korea's share. Although South Korea has some dissatisfaction, the two countries have always been dominated by Laos and the United States, and their dissatisfaction has actually played little role.
In addition to the above-mentioned countries, the United States also asks its allies in Europe to share military spending, but these allies are not as good-tempered as Japan and South Korea, their attitude is tougher than Germany, and the proportion of sharing is not too high, but on the whole, they have reached a basic agreement with each other. As for the spending of the US military in other countries, it depends on the specific situation. Some countries are indeed very poor, and the United States has no choice but to collect a little money symbolically, or not at all.
Even when it encounters a country like Djibouti, the United States has to pay a little money to lease the land needed for the base, but these countries and regions are not the strategic core of the United States. The cost is far less than that of Germany, Japan, South Korea and European countries, which is basically negligible.
The United States has so many military bases overseas, isn't that cheaper for these countries?Japan and South Korea have to pay so much money, don't they suffer a loss?In fact, the US military bases overseas are not too much of a loss for both sides. As far as Lao Mei itself is concerned, although it does burn money, it also consolidates the hegemony of the dollar, which is the greatest benefit for him.
In addition, in this way, the continuous global layout, the interests in this are not visible in the short term, but such a continuous and huge expenditure must have its value and significance, and is in line with their strategy. In the case of Germany, South Korea, Japan, and other countries, there are certain advantages to having military bases on their territory. For example, although Germany has been very tough on the withdrawal of US troops, its domestic armed forces are still not comparable to Japan's. If the US side really withdraws its troops, I am afraid that the Germans will regret it again.
A country like South Korea has always been attached to the wing of his big brother, and for a small amount of money, he can continue to develop after his big brother, and at the same time he does not have to bear huge additional military spending, so why not?
As far as Japan is concerned, they have always had ambitions to build their own strength, but the United States has always taken it to the death. As far as the current situation is concerned, the best thing to do is to unswervingly follow his eldest brother's train of thought, rather than touching his scales. While it costs the most money, it also benefits the most, and it's definitely a good deal.
For other countries in the world, the reasons for allowing US military bases to be built within their borders are only the above points, either because they are unable to afford the country's security under their own conditions, or it is beneficial to follow the pace of the United States, or they have a close interest relationship with them, so the construction of military bases in their countries is something that both sides cannot ask for. World strife