Well, most of them are what I’d call “insurance policy” bases. Most of the ones in Europe are of this sort. They’re there just in case some stuff goes down, like North Korea launches a missile into the middle of France or something.

Will: If you’re calling it an “insurance policy,” then it is the same as depending on Volcano Insurance to keep my house safe.

(And NK can’t hit France… choose more realistic examples)

Caffrey, it’s better to have the bases when you don’t need them then to not have them when you need them.

Why don’t you pick a more realistic example than volcano insurance? The reason people in their 20s are a large percentage of the people without health insurance is because they can usually afford it but choose to use their discretionary income on something else. And some of them get screwed when they get sick.

On average, excluding prescriptions to daily medications (like acne medicine or Ritalin,) how often does the average person use their health insurance? Rarely, I’d say. But we buy insurance for the reason that it’s better for it to be there when we don’t need it than for it not to be there when we do need it.

Expect the unexpected.

“It’s better to have the bases when you don’t need them then to not have them when you need them.” -William “Big_Willie_Styles” Thode

That’s a fair point, but it assumes that there is no cost to having bases. Operating costs are probably negligible compared to the cost of ill-will harbored by those that feel threatened by the bases. One of Osama Bin Laden’s three stated reason’s for attacking America on 9/11 was the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia.

Will,

I chose Volcano Insurance for a reason; sure overseas bases can certainly help in the event of an incident, but foreign bases create unwanted animosity in the rest of the world. Furthermore, explain how American troops in Germany or South Korea are going to effectively deter North Korean missiles over France? Clearly, they can respond after the fact but America can do that with domestic troops; either of our airborne divisions have the ability to deploy to any part of the world, with equipment in 72 hours. Also, an effective response does not require 716 bases; that number could easily be smaller to achieve the same effect.

While health insurance is a separate issue, the fact of the matter is Insurance is an informed choice on the part of individuals; those that do not want to purchase it do not have to. While I don’t want to stray off-topic from the matter at hand, insurance truely is a discretionary item; it is extraoridnarily expensive and people can choose what coverage they want based upon their needs.

What M. Caffrey is basically saying is that he wishes to take more risks than his comrades here on this online forum. The defense programmes that the Americans have are mind-boggling, but they are quite more safe and comfortable than even us Brits are. Hell, what I’d give to have more Royal Marines stationed in posts around the world, especially with things flaring up in the Falklands.
M. Caffrey chooses to be more risky by lessening his “discretionary” item of “insurance” while others believe it not to be. Just as ‘NK’ can attack the US at any point in time, so could cancer attack yourself. The real question is will you pay a discretionary cost now for heightened security or risk paying exponentially higher in the future.
Cordially,

DD