...cities/states that contain said bases are clamoring to keep them open. Are they entitled to maintain the bases, or are they irresponsible for depending solely on the base?
FlyingTexan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 days ago) and read 799 times:
I’m immune from BRAC as my 3 main domiciles, Houston, Las Vegas, and Naples, Fla have limited military presence. I think any action involving Ellington would be insignificant to the economic powerhouse the 4th largest city is, Nellis AFB north of Vegas is not what drives Southern Nevada’s economy, and Southwest Florida has no military presence sans a random Coast Guard base.
AsstChiefMark From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 days ago) and read 779 times:
They have nothing to piss and moan about. They made the mistake of assuming the military would never leave. They put all their eggs into one basket and now the basket has fallen off the table. If they can't have omelets for breakfast tomorrow it's their own fault.
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18800 posts, RR: 64 Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 759 times:
The only base under consideration for closing that I believe they should rethink is the submarine training station in CT. Isn't that the only training center for subs? (If not, the news report on TV was incorrect.)
Ellsworth AFB can go, in my opinion. It'll halt the confusion with civilian landings at the Rapid City airport, and show up Sen. Thune, who made as a part of his campaign pledge to unseat Tom Daschle that he would keep the base open.
Tom in NO From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 7194 posts, RR: 41 Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 752 times:
The people I fell sorry for the most are those small businesses that have depended upon these military installations and the contributions they have made to the local economies over the years. Places like Clovis, New Mexico, home of Cannon Air Force Base. I'm sure a lot of people don't think much of Clovis, probably don't think closing a base there means much. And while whatever military personnel are currently assigned to Cannon can likely transfer to some other base, the town itself will likely become a mere shell of what it once was, basically the next town.
While consolidation and change can be and are necessary evils, I won't be joining the group of those cracking back that these military towns are getting what they deserve.
Tom at MSY
"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
TedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 748 times:
It's a fact of life. I have had several jobs in my life and NEVER once did I get paid for sitting around and feeling sorry for myself that I was un-employed!!
Garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 55 Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 728 times:
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 3): I believe they should rethink is the submarine training station in CT. Isn't that the only training center for subs?
Yes, most of the submarine corps training schools are at New London, but they'll be moved elsewhere - either Kings Bay, GA or Norfolk, VA, along with the base's 16 SSNs.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
Lowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 11 Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 714 times:
I think they need to seriously consider any remaining bases in Europe. Aside from being a staging area for the Middle East and Western Asia, what purpose do they serve and can we do without some of them? Or could we possibly utilize some joint use facilities?
ANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 697 times:
The only base listed on for Alaska is Kulis Air National Guard Base. It could go, and everything could move to Elmendorf AFB right across town with little to no impact at all. Unfortunately, there have been many millions of $$$ put into the base in the last 5 years as it's buildings have been rebuilt or new built. New Clinic, Security Police Sattion, Fire Department, Training Center, Main Gate, etc. The base looks entirely different than it did 5 years ago.
No loss with Kulis gone. Elmendorf has the ramp space to take the C-130s and the Air Rescue Squadron based at Kulis.
As for the other bases on the list, I can't talk to them specifically. I've been to McPherson and Gillem, and there is nothing extraordinary about either of them.
What I did notice is there are significantly more reserve base on the list. Some of them are obviously crappy little bases that are redundant and have no value . . .
Searpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4343 posts, RR: 12 Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 676 times:
While I think every community with military facilities should be (and for the most part are) aware that there are no guarantee that the bases will be there forever, some of these communities have nothing else really going for them.
Clovis is a prime example, there is zip in that part of New Mexico, too dry to farm or ranch, to remote for significant industry, and nothing to draw tourists. So the town has taken what it's got (the base) and done the best it can. You can't blame them for being devastated over the possible loss of the base. Doesn't mean that the base should be kept open just for their benefit, but with family all over southern New Mexico, I can still feel for what these people are going to go through.
So to answer the question, no, nobody and no area is entitled to a base. The overall good of the country and the efficiencies gained by the military out weigh most local concerns, but when an area loses a base, there's nothing wrong with having empathy for their situation.
"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29349 posts, RR: 62 Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 654 times:
I wonder if the military is making a mistake by centralizing all of its resources into a few "Mega" bases.
I would point out that on December 7 1941 the Japanese where able to take full advantage of the Navy's decisions to centralize it's pacfic fleet in one place.
I also wonder how the impact on military relations and recruiting will be. Having many smaller spread out facilities means more contact between themilitary and the public. The presence is much more visible. That is why I think the closing of all of those reserve training facilities is going to be particularly painful, particularly if it moves a training location beyond the limit that a reservist is willing to travel for one weekend a month.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 643 times:
Quoting Tom in NO (Reply 4): The people I fell sorry for the most are those small businesses that have depended upon these military installations and the contributions they have made to the local economies over the years
Data from all base closures since 1990 show that, on average, 85% of the civilian jobs are recovered in 5-10 years, and the local economy is more prosporus within a decade. In San Fransico, for example, the closing of the Presidio base was one of the best things to happen for the city. Austin, Tx converted their closed facility into an airport, and AUS has contributed more to the economy than the base ever did.
Quoting L-188 (Reply 10): I also wonder how the impact on military relations and recruiting will be. Having many smaller spread out facilities means more contact between themilitary and the public. The presence is much more visible
Excellent point... however, dollars are getting thinner and thinner, so every bit of fat must be trimmed.
Quoting Lowrider (Reply 7): I think they need to seriously consider any remaining bases in Europe. Aside from being a staging area for the Middle East and Western Asia, what purpose do they serve and can we do without some of them?
We cannot remove bases from Germany, per the reunification of West/East Germany in the early 1990s. France, in particular, was reluctant to sign-off on the reunification of a nation who had waged two massive wars of aggression in the 20th century. A little abreivated, but the French basically said, were cool with German reunification if the U.S. stays.
How long, and to what extent, the U.S. must keep forces in Germany, I don't know. Germany and France or now best friends (again, in part to the U.S.) so who knows how long it's necessary.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 15714 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4343 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
