Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Base Closures in UK

  1. #1
    Senior Member js7799's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    EDIMGIAFAD
    Posts
    128
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Base Closures in UK

    http://www.stripes.com/news/europe/r...tions-1.322825

    Looks like Mildenhall, Alconbury and Molesworth are getting the proverbial ax within the next couple of years. I knew for Alconbury and Molesworth it was only a matter of time, but I am surprised about Mildenhall. It will be interesting to see where the affected units end up.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    851
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by js7799 View Post
    http://www.stripes.com/news/europe/r...tions-1.322825

    Looks like Mildenhall, Alconbury and Molesworth are getting the proverbial ax within the next couple of years. I knew for Alconbury and Molesworth it was only a matter of time, but I am surprised about Mildenhall. It will be interesting to see where the affected units end up.
    Unfortunately, closing overseas bases is the only option since they don't fall within any congressional districts/states. I'm quite sure that if the AF had its way we would have a full blown CONUS BRAC, while leaving the strategic overseas locations open. That would probably make more sense, especially considering the growing Russian and Chinese threats.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Dayon, Ohio
    Posts
    1,244
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Close them all. Bring everyone home. It isn't our job to defend other countries. I don't see any foreign military bases in the United States. Why is it that we feel the need to have bases in other soverign nations? Close them down and give the bases to the host countries. If we need to use them in the future for logistical reasons an agreement can be worked out. Sure that will cost money but it will still be cheaper than COLA and support costs for military and their overseas dependants.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Stalwart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    1,055
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FLAPS, USAF (ret) View Post
    Unfortunately, closing overseas bases is the only option since they don't fall within any congressional districts/states. I'm quite sure that if the AF had its way we would have a full blown CONUS BRAC, while leaving the strategic overseas locations open. That would probably make more sense, especially considering the growing Russian and Chinese threats.
    And unfortunately, based on my time on the Hill I agree with you. The services have ID'd some CONUS installations that they would like to close but they lack the authority to do it.

    One work around I saw was the movement of a squadron (not a base closure) which does not really require Congressional approval ... it still met a lot of resistance and caused that service some pain for a while.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,882
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FLAPS, USAF (ret) View Post
    Unfortunately, closing overseas bases is the only option since they don't fall within any congressional districts/states. I'm quite sure that if the AF had its way we would have a full blown CONUS BRAC, while leaving the strategic overseas locations open. That would probably make more sense, especially considering the growing Russian and Chinese threats.
    Are they threatening us?

  6. #6
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Mildenhall was the best assignment of my career, by far. Sad to see it go. Too bad they can't close shitty bases in shitty locations. The good thing is that it's not going to hurt the community too much, since it's all shared with Lakenheath.

    Might as well just move everything to Ramstein. They need about 4 more HQ buildings and it might give them some sort of justification for all the money spent there on base services. We all know that the only base that really matters in Europe anyway...at least to those who decide where funding goes.

  7. #7
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FLAPS, USAF (ret) View Post
    Unfortunately, closing overseas bases is the only option since they don't fall within any congressional districts/states.
    Well, it's the only option for those who are more worried about getting re-elected rather than doing what's necessary.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    851
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    Are they threatening us?
    Depends who you talk to. How about I change the word "threat" to "potential future adversaries?"

  9. #9
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FLAPS, USAF (ret) View Post
    Depends who you talk to. How about I change the word "threat" to "potential future adversaries?"
    Aren't there McDonald's in both of those countries? If so, then history tells us we have nothing to worry about.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    851
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    Aren't there McDonald's in both of those countries? If so, then history tells us we have nothing to worry about.
    The key is to keep McDonalds in business then.

    http://www.businessweek.com/articles...sian-mcdonalds

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •