38 military bases to be closed in the US

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet][b]Lawmakers scramble to save bases
Pentagon recommends closing 30-plus major military facilities

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon on Friday recommended closing 33 major military installations and many smaller facilities across the United States, sparking fierce reactions from lawmakers who had hoped their states would be spared.

The proposed changes also include significant reductions of forces at another 29 major bases.

The 28-page document, sent to the nine-member Base Realignment and Closure Commission, known as BRAC, marks the first step in a politically charged process that will end with a congressional vote near the end of the year. (Full story)

It calls for changes in all 50 states, with a net loss of 10,782 military positions and 18,223 civilian positions; 2,818 contractor posts would be added.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Thursday the changes would save the Pentagon more than $5 billion annually and produce a net savings of $48 billion during the next two decades.

He also pointed out the current bases were "designed for the Cold War," and realignment is necessary to enable the U.S. military to face the war against terrorism and other new challenges.

Military personnel will be moved into positions at other U.S. bases or overseas.

The list recommends 775 facilities for what the Pentagon calls "minor closures and realignments."

Members of Congress got advance copies of the report and reaction came quickly.

U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, called the recommendation a "travesty and a strategic blunder of epic proportions on the part of the Defense Department."

Her state has three installations on the list, including the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

Military officials said the changes called for are larger than those enacted in previous rounds of closures.

"This was a capability review aimed at jointness," Deputy Undersecretary Michael Wynne said at a news briefing. "We think all of the services are in fact going to gain from this event."

Wynne said the Defense Department defined a major military base as one with a "plant replacement value" of at least $100 million. The department said there are 318 of those.

The powerful chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Duncan Hunter, R-California, said he told Rumsfeld that he opposes the recommendation to close the submarine base at New London, Connecticut.

Hunter said he opposes the closure "from a national security standpoint" because "undersea warfare is now and in the future will be critical to our survival as a nation."

Two Connecticut lawmakers -- Rep. Rob Simmons, a Republican who represents New London, and Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Democrat -- said they are outraged by the decision to close the submarine base, according to Simmons' office.

Among the recommended changes is a broad reduction of forces in Germany and South Korea as well as what are termed "undistributed troops." The total for those groups would drop by 14,000.

One of the bases that would be closed if the recommendations are followed is Georgia's Fort McPherson, headquarters of the U.S. Army Forces Command, which directs deployment for Army personnel.

Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue said proposals to close Fort McPherson and other bases in the state disappoints him.

"The battle is not over. We will continue to give a vigorous defense of the military missions of these installations as we go forward," Perdue said.

Others recommended for closure include the Naval Station in Pascagoula, Mississippi; Fort Monmouth in New Jersey; Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico; Fort Monroe in Virginia; and Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota.

Rumsfeld said Thursday that the list would be shorter than expected since additional space will be needed to house U.S. troops now deployed overseas.

"Nonetheless, the changes that will occur will affect a number of communities, communities that have warmly embraced nearby military installations for a good many years -- indeed, in some cases, decades," he said.

"The department will take great care to work with these communities with the respect that they have earned, and the government stands ready with economic assistance."

What's next?
The military has carried out four earlier rounds of base closings since 1988. The Pentagon estimates those closures have saved about $40 billion so far.

Former Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi leads the nine-member base-closing commission.

The panel will review the Pentagon's recommendations and send them, along with any changes, to the White House by September 8.

President Bush has until September 23 to approve or reject the list without making changes; if approved, it goes to Congress for a vote.

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the closures were designed in conjunction with efforts to turn the U.S. armed services into lighter, more agile forces.

The closure of several bases is "a necessary part of that," Myers said.

"It is integral to our ability to structure ourselves to be able to defend this country well into the future."[/b]



I don't know much about this topic so if anyone cares to add some onto this thread, please do.

I'm sitting around listening to the local news and I've heard that they're going to close 38 military bases in the United States. The Pentagon claims that this is being done to save money. But it costs more to close the bases than to keep them open. I forgot exact costs, but I think it's 4 million more to close them than to keep them open.

Honestly, I don't see the logic in this idea from Washington. The united states has two wars going on right now and they want to close military posts? Why?

I'm going to try and find an article on this topic now, but until then if you want to share your thoughts, please do.[/color]

[Annie]

[color=darkgreen]I can't say much for the other military bases, I only know that mine stays; and frankly, that's all I care about at the moment. I'm still in a frenzy of what I want to do, so it would have been total chaos if my base closed.

For any other military members, I do hope that if your base closed you'll be taken care of.[/color]

[Box Hoy]

Our base better not close. This is the first I've heard of this. We're a small redneck town so I'm pretty sure they won't take ours out becuase it's not anything big but I don't support this. How can they do this while we're at war. Even if the bases we're designed during the Cold War we're not going to be any better off if we don't have the extra protection and look at the amount of job losses. That's sad.

[Morpheus]

I'm glad Fort Knox isn't closing down. Without the base, that place would be a ghost town. It's somewhat cool being close to a place that has 6000 bps guns, heh.

[Japan]

[COLOR=Navy]The closing of these bases really make me angry. Sure, Fairchild AFB is safe, but what about the others? I do know that the Army recruitment center out in the valley where my history teacher works at is going to be closed. What if they make him quit his job as a teacher and make him either move to either Yakima, WA, or Montana? I would really miss him.

I also hope that Scott AFB won't get closed. I've spent nine years of my life there and it be a big loss to see the place I grew up get closed. What if they close Mildenhall AFB in England?

I find the idea of closing these bases very itiotic. Just like CWH said, we are in a middle of a war. Including another possible one in Korea.[/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[SIZE=1][quote name='Japan][COLOR=Navy']I find the idea of closing these bases very itiotic. Just like CWH said, we are in a middle of a war. Including another possible one in Korea.[/COLOR][/quote]
Firstly, I'd like to point out that Bush would [B]never[/B], and I repeat [B]never[/B] have a war with North Korea. They would easily kill us all if we were to launch some sort of assault at them. This thing called a nuclear warhead would destroy Washington, D.C., NYC, LA, or any other major population center of the USA. I sure hope Bush isn't ignorant enough to do any of that. But maybe you meant "with" Korea, instead of "in" Korea. That would change alot...

Yes, we are in the middle of the war, so I would [I]assume[/I] that closing down these facilities would in some way hinder our [America's] fighting capability. However, I really don't know the situation -- why they were closed down, when, and whatever information to make this situation.

I vaguely recall that the Bush camp mentioned that this would save money some how... but you can't trust Bush. hehe

You know, it really pains me to actually give a shred of help for Bush, but I'm just stating what I found in the post.

[quote]The Pentagon estimates those closures have saved about $40 billion so far.[/quote]Considering how deep Bush has us in already... perhaps this money could be allocated to better things? Oh... right. It'll just go back into the war. No "child left behind" anymore, no more health care benefits for the elderly. It's all about the [b]war[/b].[/SIZE]

[Japan]

[QUOTE=Retribution][SIZE=1]
Firstly, I'd like to point out that Bush would [B]never[/B], and I repeat [B]never[/B] have a war with North Korea. They would easily kill us all if we were to launch some sort of assault at them. This thing called a nuclear warhead would destroy Washington, D.C., NYC, LA, or any other major population center of the USA. I sure hope Bush isn't ignorant enough to do any of that. But maybe you meant "with" Korea, instead of "in" Korea. That would change alot...[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=Navy]Then why would the army send guys over there then?[/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[SIZE=1][quote name='Japan][COLOR=Navy']Then why would the army send guys over there then?[/COLOR][/quote]To make sure they don't invade South Korea. They're our homies. xD We, quite frankly, don't have the strength to do it. Remember the Vietnam War? The war we got our ***** handed to us? We don't want that to happen again, so we won't actively invade, but we'll definitely guard the border for our fellow allies.[/SIZE]

[Dragonboym2]

[COLOR=Blue]A freind of mine works at Hanscom AF base! He's got a family, for Christs sake! And he's a MARINE as well! And don't forget he was in Iraq for FOUR months. This is how they repay him? DOWN WITH BUSH! DOWN WITH BUSH! DOWN WITH BUSH!

"KAMEHAMEHA!"

Dragonboym2[/COLOR]

[Sinistra]

[COLOR=Navy][FONT=Palatino Linotype]Well Chibi, I know the Niagara Falls AFB was to be closed. It was headlined in the Buffalo News. That kinda sucks, since one of my friends works there and he'll be out of a job when it does close.

I've always [B]hated[/B] Bush, and I would do something about it, but I can't vote yet. I'm not 18 yet.

It's gonna feel weird, driving through Niagara Falls and not seeing a huge Leviathan hovering in the skies.

Bush is a ****** idiot.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[SIZE=1]Yes, peoople, it [I]does[/I] suck alot. Plenty of undeserving people lost their jobs, or will soon. But I'm wondering ... instead of bashing Bush, why not try to see what benefits there will be? In the article, it briefly mentioned a 40 billion dollar saving in closing down these bases. Think, for a minute, how much do these bases help in this "Crusade on Terrorism?" I know my base (Andrew's AFB) doesn't really do much at all ... it's more of a training ground. But it's still being kept open. And I wonder ... how many other bases aren't doing much for this war, and how could our [America's] resources be allocated better to help the nation through it all.

I seriously don't know what your bases do, so don't jump up and yell at me like "Well, my base does send troops over!" I'm just trying to find some logical reason why Bush would do it. It's not like the man actually [I]wants[/I] to hurt the country. So he must've had some reason (a logical one, to him at least) for doing this. I'm sure he doesn't just close down a few hundred bases for the hell of it.[/SIZE]

[Box Hoy]

You see, the problem with Bush is that he may tell us what he's doing and the benefiets but he really leaves up to us to see the negatives and then he realizes what he has done and trys to compinsate by repeating the process.
Those losing their jobs will have tons of experience in themilitary to find another job at a still open base or continue on with their lives.
We can only hope that the 40 Billion goes to something other than the war like schools or social security.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]Well, I do know that Ft. Hood (the largest military base in the free world) and Ft. Drum aren't closing. But why the rest?

Niagra AFB is necessary to the economy of that area. Why can't the military just restructure themselves like they've been planning on doing since JAnuary and leave peopel where there are? Or better yet, Bush can hold a bake sale to make money to save teh bases from being closed. Like I mentioned before it takes more money to close a base than to keep it open.[/color]

[Pumpkin]

[QUOTE=Box Hoy]You see, the problem with Bush is that he may tell us what he's doing and the benefiets but he really leaves up to us to see the negatives and then he realizes what he has done and trys to compinsate by repeating the process.
Those losing their jobs will have tons of experience in the military to find another job at a still open base or continue on with their lives.
We can only hope that the 40 Billion goes to something other than the war like schools or social security.[/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1]
I can see both the sides of this problem. There is also something like this happening in California, the governor is cutting back alot and hopes to save billions of dollars by doing it. Its all going to transportation too, which I feel should go to things listed above like Medical Care. [b]Retribution[/b] may be right when he says that they may be cutting off the bases to save money for other purposes, maybe ever FOR the war itself. But how do we know if its actually going to go for a good cause? How many times have we been told we we're going to do something and it being changed at the last minute? You never really know where all that money is going to, but the least we can do is think that its going into a good cause. But [b]Chibi[/b] is right about one thing, why the hassle if the bases cost more to close then to keep open? [/SIZE]

[DeathBug]

Honestly, I don't see what the fuss is all about. Military bases are evaluated for usefulness rather routinely, every time there's a shift in military focus. It's common sense; why keep pouring money, resources and manpower into bases that serve no strategic purpose? We closed many more down after the fall of the Soviet Union, and since the military focus has changed once again, this really shouldn't be surprising.

To say it costs more to close bases than keep them open is really a stretch. Yes, you have to pay to relocate the troops and resources to different bases, but in the long run, it's more effective that leaving leech bases that suck in resources for absolutly no reason?

Oh, I forgot; this is the Bush administration. Therefore, every single action they take is evil incarnate, designed specifically to kill foreign babies.

Common sense be damned, right?

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='DeathBug '] Honestly, I don't see what the fuss is all about. Military bases are evaluated for usefulness rather routinely, every time there's a shift in military focus. It's common sense; why keep pouring [/quote]

[color=darkviolet] One of the bases that the Pentagon is considering closing is a very useful base. I forot which one it is, but they keep the military supplied with the armor used on the Humvees. From what I understand that is rather useful.... Unless you think that armor isn't a necessity.[/color]

[quote name='DeathBug ']To say it costs more to close bases than keep them open is really a stretch. Yes, you have to pay to relocate the troops and resources to different bases, but in the long run, it's more effective that leaving leech bases that suck in resources for absolutly no reason?[/quote]

[color=darkviolet] Yes, because the 4 million less to keep them open is just pocket change and it can't be used for anything else. Relocation and re structuring platoons is a major hassle from what I've heard. Never mind the fact that along with the military bases there are military families living on the bases who will also have to be relocated. Why not just keep everyone where they are. The bases are being utilized, they're not standing empty.[/color]

[quote name='DeathBug ']Oh, I forgot; this is the Bush administration. Therefore, every single action they take is evil incarnate, designed specifically to kill foreign babies.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet] Was that comment really necessary?[/color]

[Retribution]

[SIZE=1][quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet'] One of the bases that the Pentagon is considering closing is a very useful base. I forot which one it is, but they keep the military supplied with the armor used on the Humvees. From what I understand that is rather useful.... Unless you think that armor isn't a necessity.[/color][/quote]
I believe that what may look useful in the large scale, long term scheme of things may not be very useful at all. I really have no idea though.

[QUOTE][color=darkviolet] Yes, because the 4 million less to keep them open is just pocket change and it can't be used for anything else. Relocation and re structuring platoons is a major hassle from what I've heard. Never mind the fact that along with the military bases there are military families living on the bases who will also have to be relocated. Why not just keep everyone where they are. The bases are being utilized, they're not standing empty.[/color][/QUOTE]I think Deathbug is right on this one -- it costs alot of money right now, but maybe down the road it'll save us some money. Like I've been saying all along. >_>

[QUOTE][color=darkviolet] Was that comment really necessary?[/color][/QUOTE]He was making a point that we shouldn't rule out Bush's policy as completely wrong before hearing it out. It came out a little rough, with the whole babies thing, but the message is [nearly] the same.[/SIZE]

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet] One of the bases that the Pentagon is considering closing is a very useful base. I forot which one it is, but they keep the military supplied with the armor used on the Humvees. From what I understand that is rather useful.... Unless you think that armor isn't a necessity.[/color]

Well, obviously, that task is going to another base. Honestly, it's not a hard concept. I don't see why everyone is freaking out. If the base had a task that isn't being done elsewhere, then they wouldn't have closed it. Really, this is all common sense.

[color=darkviolet] Yes, because the 4 million less to keep them open is just pocket change and it can't be used for anything else. Relocation and re structuring platoons is a major hassle from what I've heard. Never mind the fact that along with the military bases there are military families living on the bases who will also have to be relocated. Why not just keep everyone where they are. The bases are being utilized, they're not standing empty.[/color]

"Utilized" and "Useful" aren't the same thing. If the base doesn't exist for a strategic purpose, then it's not useful, regardless of the number of people there.

And I'm well aware of the stress and hassels of relocation.


[color=darkviolet] Was that comment really necessary?[/color][/QUOTE]

Probably not, but I didn't think "DOWN WITH BUSH!" was, either. (Not directing that at you.)