Pages

Wednesday, March 11, 2026

Joint Bases

If you can’t use it when you need it, it’s not really a joint base, is it?  So why are we paying towards foreign “joint” bases?

10 comments:

  1. The one I can’t get my head around is Diego Garcia. I’m not a lawyer but I don’t understand why we (the UK) doesn’t just sign it over to the US on the understanding the US takes over full legal responsibility for it. We don’t use it and it just ties us up in knots legally and financially. (sorry if this is to political, feel free to remove) Clive F

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My questionable understanding is that the UK only has around 40 people at the base, providing administrative support so, yeah, it's hard to understand.

      Delete
    2. I believe that the Brits are getting substantial political pressure to return those islands to the original inhabitants.

      I would like to see us purchase them and be done with the drama.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    3. I'm a different anonymous-

      There were no original inhabitants at Diego Garcia.

      This is virtue signaling and a bit of manipulation.

      Delete
    4. "I'm a different anonymous-"

      It would be very helpful to add a simple username to the end of your comments. Not required but helpful.

      "There were no original inhabitants at Diego Garcia."

      There were no original inhabitants of anything, anywhere. People "invaded" everywhere in a never ending series of conquests (some bloody, some not) and the "original" inhabitants were just the survivors/victors. The harsh reality is that all of history is about conquest and might-makes-right and that still applies today however much we try to sugarcoat it.

      Delete
  2. This depends on the ally. For example, after being a WW II battleground the Philippines has no interest in WW III. They will accept billions of dollars in American aid and base development, but if tensions with China soar I expect them to tell the Americans to leave, and have probably promised this to the Chinese already.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the Spanish base, if the Russians rolled across the Polish border, the base in Spain would be open.
      As to why the Spanish base was closed to the US
      attack on Iran, it is tied up in their Civil War.
      "The past is never dead. It's not even past" TW

      Delete
    2. Civil war ?
      from Spanish POV: Russia threatens Europe directly while Iran doesn’t + they want to sell their military aircraft and naval ships in middle east region are the main reasons

      Delete
    3. "Russia threatens Europe directly while Iran doesn’t"

      I hope that's your opinion and not Spain's because it's incredibly short-sighted and narrow focused. Iran's actions affect the entire world. Terrorism impacts world wide shipping and shipping costs. Instability in the region affects the entire world's oil supply. A nuclear armed Iran would be a threat to the entire world. And so on.

      Using your (Spain's?) logic, a Russian invasion of Europe wouldn't directly threaten the US, therefore, the US should allow Spain (and Europe) to stand or fall on their own with no US assistance. That kind of narrow view cuts both ways, doesn't it?

      Delete
    4. I always thought that simply supporting the Phillipines in the territorial disputes would go a long way. They've played both sides for a long time, and we've been noticeably absent from actually supporting them as an ally. If we actually didn't play play the wimp card for a change, it might solidify our partnerships- like escorting the resupply of that old grounded LST with a DDG or three... and actively intervening. Or maybe having an SSN show up and ping the Chinese vessels that are interfering... or somthing similar that might show we're actually supporting our ally against the territorial incursions, rather than doing nothing, and leaving doubts as to whether we are a true ally....

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.