35 minutes ago, Jon Jones said:

Bad how? What benefit does NATO provide the U.S.? Not paying their fair share. Taking advantage of us for years. Not supporting us with bases that WE built for THEIR protection. Please explain?

Making sure the opening shots of WW3 start in Berlin and not Baltimore.

The US bases in Europe were not built for the protection of Europe. They were built for the protection of the United States. RAF Fairford is home to a U2 detachment from the 99th Reconnaisance Squadron for ultra long distance recce missions. Not really to do with Europe.

It has a 10,000 foot runway for strategic bombers. Thats to do with protecting the US homeland. Its a staging posts for B1s and B52s. Its the only Forward Operating Base in Europe, essential for the ptoection of the US. In 1999, the Americans used it to bomb Yugoslavia. The Americans used it to bomb Iraq. The Americans use Any protection they provide for Europe is a secondary benefit (and actually, the bases themselves offer no protection as in WW3, they would last about 4 minutes).

RAF Croughton is home 422nd Air Base Group whose function is to provide installation support, services, force protection, and worldwide communications across the entire spectrum of operations,

RAF Mildenhall is currently home tom the 100th Air Refueling Wing, 352nd Special Operations Wing and the 501st Combat Support Wing (this is an admin unit). the 352nd flies those strange Ospreys and lately were used to support combat operations in South West Asia and support to American civilians in Africa. The Air Refuelers have been in more r less continuous operation for the last 25 years over the Middle East, flying from the UK.

RAF Menwith Hill is the largest electronic monitoring station in the world. Sneaky beaky stuff, including early warning for the US. Without it, the Russians could well bomb you back to the Stone Age.

RAF Welford is the USAFs second largest ammunition storage base in Europe. It exists to primarily support when the B52s are in town bombing the Middle East.

From RAF Lakenheath, F35s fly. The US also stored B61 nukes there so they don't have to be stored in the US. Operationally, the base was used extensively in variousl bombing campaigns over Libya, iraq and now Iran.

The US base in Diego Garcia doesn't exist for the benefit of the Chagossians who can't live there anymore. The US bases in Greenland exist to protect the US from China.

Literally, if all these units were relocated to the Continental US, the US would be less safe. You will have reduced global reach to bomb caves in Afghanistan where men might be planning the next 911. You have less notice that some state has initiated a First Strike against the United States.

56 minutes ago, bannork said:

The countries in NATO buy a lot of weapons from the USA. Your armanents industry would take quite a hit if we divorced and stopped buying from you.

The USA would lose 31 bases scattered throughout Europe.

Sure would make the journeys longer when you have to move troops and planes all the way from the USA next time you want to bomb the hell out of some country.

Of course you have the bases in the Gulf States but you could get kicked out of there if this Iran shambles ever closes.

Finally, a lot of intelligence, training and exercises are shared between NATO partners, leading to a more formidable force than if the USA went alone.

As a reminder , Trump's war in Iran, illegal as it never passed Congress, is nothing to do with NATO, an organisation founded for defence of its territory, not adventurist imperialist aggression as undertaken by Trump.

The destroyed aircraft (a whole bunch of them) that were parked at Prince Sultan AB indicates they were better off parked in Europe.

8 hours ago, Slowhand225 said:

Uh, thats the point.

It won't be complete isolation, even you should know that.

Sorry, I forgot about Isreal and Russia!

3 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

The US bases in Europe were not built for the protection of Europe. They were built for the protection of the United States

Protection how? They function as trip wires, forcing the US into another European war, should Russia attack Western Europe. They -- airplanes and troops -- certainly don't provide any protection for the US. Russia's only threat to the US are ICBMs and bombers over the North Pole (so, we'd better keep our bilateral NORAD treaty with Canada in place).

No, packing up and leaving Europe would be a military and economic win for the US. Those active duty troops could be eliminated, as their primary function as tripwires wouldn't be a mission transferred back to the US. And, as we learned in 1986 (Libya), having one NATO ally allowing the launch of US planes (UK), but having another precluding overflight (our good buddy, France) -- says: If you're forced into a long overwater journey because of a defective treaty, you'd be better off packing a second piddle pack and deploying from the US to a 'friendly base' in the region of concern. And, if we closed all our Europe fighter bases, I guess the next Bosnia would just have to handled by Europe. So sad.