And thanks to Webstral's post, we can see just how deeply entwined politics is in certain aspects of the US military. So again I'll say, you can't really separate the politics too far from this one.
As a hypothetical question - in two parts although all for the one answer.
Do you think the divide between civilian and military could be reduced (even if just a little), if the military had smaller but more bases rather than a small number of large bases? Included in the smaller bases option would be to mix military housing in with civilian housing in civilian suburbs rather than have large suburbs of purely military housing (regardless of whether it's on base or nearby).
In theory, more bases & housing spread around the nation would mean more military personnel get to mix with civilian counterparts.
Unfortunately due to the government's fervent belief that centralization saves them money (and there's no doubt that it does) by concentrating everything in as few areas as possible, this hypothetical is not likely to be implemented but as a few extra points of consideration in favour of decentralization: -
1. With a few mega-bases, one natural disaster or military strike etc. etc. can put many more assets out of commission in "one hit" so to speak, (this isn't just limited to the military, it applies to electrical distribution networks, hospitals, ports, warehouses and so on and so on). This is the major weakness of centralization, one hit can potentially be a killer.
2. More, although smaller, bases spread around the nation increase the number of people needed to work on those bases so you also reduce the unemployment rate somewhat (although this will be too expensive for the bean counters even if more workers/less unemployed means more tax income).
3. Although not needing much consideration for smaller nations, for larger countries like Australia, Canada, China and obviously the USA, a number of smaller bases spread around the nation increases the security potential of the military compared to having most of the military holed up in a few mega-bases. How do you measure such an effect though and I'm sure it's something that's too esoteric for the bean counters to truly understand or care about?
4. Linked somewhat to point 3. is something of varied benefit - transportation. If you have a few large bases in central areas, the transport can all be combined to ship large numbers of items/personnel etc. etc. but with a larger number of smaller bases around the country, some bases may actually have a shorter distance to travel to embarkation points and thus cost less to transport. A potential although probably marginal benefit in the long term?
As a total aside, I also have the belief that the cost-saving measure of cutting back/cancelling of, military open days, flying displays etc. etc. has had a negative impact on the military-civilian divide. If the civvies don't see what you do, they tend to think you're doing nothing and wasting their taxes. Open days and the like don't stop that train of thought for everyone but it does get some civvies more interested in what the military is doing and by actually talking (connecting socially) to military personnel, even perhaps makes them more sympathetic.
|