Should the local economy play ANY part in military base decisions?

[radcen]

Should the local economy play ANY part in military base decisions?

Example: There is a National Guard base in my state's capital. There are proposals to permanently move the F-16s currently stationed there to another place. State and local politicians are fighting this, of course, greatly based on the negative effect the move would have on the local economy. Lost jobs, less government spending locally, and so on.

This is a very common scenario around the country, and I am just using the current local example to express the point of the question.

My take: I say 'no'. While I certainly understand the local concerns, I believe the military should place absolutely zero consideration on local economy concerns in any decision they make. Military basing decisions should be factored 100% solely on their own needs. Their job is national defense, not local welfare.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Should the local economy play ANY part in military base decisions?

Example: There is a National Guard base in my state's capital. There are proposals to permanently move the F-16s currently stationed there to another place. State and local politicians are fighting this, of course, greatly based on the negative effect the move would have on the local economy. Lost jobs, less government spending locally, and so on.

This is a very common scenario around the country, and I am just using the current local example to express the point of the question.

My take: I say 'no'. While I certainly understand the local concerns, I believe the military should place absolutely zero consideration on local economy concerns in any decision they make. Military basing decisions should be factored 100% solely on their own needs. Their job is national defense, not local welfare.

What needs there is no enemy which requires defense in north america.
If they can lobby and winge to keep their base then they can.
Thats how those bases got there in the first place.

 

[beerftw]

i remeber under clinton and early bush jr years there was a big push to dismantle a bunch of military bases,well not so much dismantle as abandon but left intact just incase they were needed.

the idea for it was that we didnt need alot of the small bases like we did in the cold war,and cuts needed to be made.

where im at anything like that wouldnt affect the local economy,as it feeds off fort hood not national guard units.what did however make some difference here is a large chunk of aviation was moved to fort bliss to help patrol the border,and last i hear fort bliss in becoming the new fort hood in terms of population.

i know for a fact if the military ever shut down any major base like fort hood,the surrounding cities would collapse.like here fort hood feeds killeen copperas cove belton nolanville temple and austin economies.

 

[rathi]

It should be a consideration, but not the primary concern. Opposing the moving or removal of a base for the sole reason it would hurt the local economy isn't reasonable. Military bases are for the purpose of national defense, the resulitng pork is simply a side effect.

 

[MoSurveyor]

My take: I say 'no'. While I certainly understand the local concerns, I believe the military should place absolutely zero consideration on local economy concerns in any decision they make. Military basing decisions should be factored 100% solely on their own needs. Their job is national defense, not local welfare.

That would be fine and dandy if the decisions were made 100% on military criteria. The problem is they're often an exchange of favors to get military budgets passed. That to me puts it beyond "military criteria" and squarely in the realm of politics.

 

[specklebang]

IMHO the Pork Factor is at least 111 times to Defense Factor.

Of course we need a substantive Military but scattering them the way we do is really an invasion resistance result and we are very unlikely to be attacked by ground from Mexico and Canada, especially together or especially soon.

We have nuclear weapons that preclude any country attacking us from a distance. We probably could consolidate everything into 100 bases total, 2 per state more or less. But these bases do contribute substantially to local economies. Otherwise, how would an American soldier buy a Chinese computer from a Mexican at WalMart?

We do something similar with Prisons. We build or destroy local economies. So the mess we have is pretty much fixed by the Porkifiication Process and realities dictate not much change.

It should be a consideration, but not the primary concern. Opposing the moving or removal of a base for the sole reason it would hurt the local economy isn't reasonable. Military bases are for the purpose of national defense, the resulitng pork is simply a side effect.

 

[jamesrage]

Should the local economy play ANY part in military base decisions?

Example: There is a National Guard base in my state's capital. There are proposals to permanently move the F-16s currently stationed there to another place. State and local politicians are fighting this, of course, greatly based on the negative effect the move would have on the local economy. Lost jobs, less government spending locally, and so on.

This is a very common scenario around the country, and I am just using the current local example to express the point of the question.

My take: I say 'no'. While I certainly understand the local concerns, I believe the military should place absolutely zero consideration on local economy concerns in any decision they make. Military basing decisions should be factored 100% solely on their own needs. Their job is national defense, not local welfare.

What should determine a Base closure,opening or movement is the strategic importance of its location and needs.

 

[beerftw]

IMHO the Pork Factor is at least 111 times to Defense Factor.

Of course we need a substantive Military but scattering them the way we do is really an invasion resistance result and we are very unlikely to be attacked by ground from Mexico and Canada, especially together or especially soon.

We have nuclear weapons that preclude any country attacking us from a distance. We probably could consolidate everything into 100 bases total, 2 per state more or less. But these bases do contribute substantially to local economies. Otherwise, how would an American soldier buy a Chinese computer from a Mexican at WalMart?

We do something similar with Prisons. We build or destroy local economies. So the mess we have is pretty much fixed by the Porkifiication Process and realities dictate not much change.

i agree on not needing so many bases,alot of what he have was from cold war era need to have soldiers anywhere at any time just incase a scenario like red dawn went down.

we dont have to worry about russians invading through canada and cubans invading through mexico and florida anymore.plus not to mention our national guard is better equipped now than during the cold war due to multiple deployment cycles.

example there are 24 military bases inside texas,24!!!!!!!!!


i can see being prepared for when texas tries to leave the union but 24 is rediculous.


State-by-State Listing of Major U.S. Military Bases - Texas

 

[Manc Skipper]

The US military provides the demand for the output of the industrial complex and is the main driver of the US economy.