It must be shocking for modern americans get a glimpse of what they are from a historical perspective..
and where Empire via the barrell of a gun has led so many times before..

*length=3:59 heavy sigh

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 3:59 - length declared by PlayhousePals.

I had been wondering how much they all cost.

Except almost all these bases are in allied countries, not as an occupying force (Guantanamo predates the Communist Revolution,so tough luck for Havana). These bases provide mutual defense and security.

Countries with US bases in them don't get invaded. How much do you think it would cost to have every single allied country try and run and maintain a truly effective military for their own defense instead of using the US as a strategic partner? Way more than $100b a year.

(P.S. loving the irony of the guy with the handle of Praetor and the avatar of the Emperor arguing he doesn't live in an empire, lol)

Not the one's in Germany...or Japan...or to some extent any in the middle east....but I do get your point. While those two are now allies, the reason the bases are there is because they were enemies, so we denied them the right to have their own military.

Yes, for the same level of effective military, replaced by the countries each of these bases are in, it would cost more overall, I'm sure you're right. BUT...most of them don't need anywhere near the level of military we supply, and they would still be our allies, so have our huge, advanced military backing even if they supplied their own military instead of relying SOLEY (or even mostly) on ours. Also, that $100B per year would be spread out over nearly 300 countries, so far easier to pull off.

About not being invaded...just to name 3....Kuwait had a US military base when Saddam invaded, Iraq has many, and they aren't dissuading ISIS. I actually think we have one in the Ukraine too, but I'm not sure (we certainly have a treaty that said clearly that we were supposed to defend them with the full force of our military if they were ever invaded...so much for that promise though). It's often a deterrent for considerate governments, but not all military agencies are thoughtful or consider the repercussions of their actions (I think the US policy proves that clearly).

Its a matter of chicken vs egg. They don't need huge military expenditures because security is provided by the US. But if they and all their neighbors had to provide sufficient defense, mostly against the people who are most likely to invade them (i.e. their neighbors), you get an arms race like you have with India/Pakistan, North/South Korea, Iran/Saudi Arabia. The indirect savings and the refocusing of capital and human resources away from the military in all of these allies countries makes the world a much safer place, since war no longer becomes the go to solution for states to resolve differences.

US bases do fall into 2 categories. Allies who don't want to get invaded again, and enemies who lost and became allies. As for Kuwait, that didn't work out well for Iraq, and Kuwait is still independent and an ally. Ukraine has no US bases, Russia would go ballistic if there were (surprisingly appropriate use of the word). ISIS is the anomaly, but right now you can put that down to the fact that Obama really, really doesn't want to put US troops on the ground (think he would hesitate if ISIS invaded England or Australia for example?), and that Iraq's military is trying to handle this as much as possible on their own and clearly having trouble.

I don't know if we need all 800 bases currently or if some are just vestigial. I'm not qualified to give an opinion on the necessity of them, though

The point that was made about us expending 800 billion from our economy to keep these bases running doesn't seem accurate to me. I expect a large percentage of the money spent to keep these bases running is paid to people that are part of the US economy so really that money is just churn in our own economy.

It is real effort though, so if the point of the story was supposed to point out how much time and man power we are putting behind these operations then I totally agree it seems like we could be doing better things with this effort.

Infrastructure projects anyone?

Well, yes and no. Yes, that money likely mostly goes to 'Americans', but the portion that pays the soldiers stationed overseas is then, largely, spent in that foreign country, so leaves our economy.

Sorry newtboy, but you're wrong on that one. Can't find any info on Japan other than that they got their own military back in 1954. But Germany's Bundeswehr was founded in 1955 and was by the mid 60s already at over 400.000 men, to stop the "evil russians" taking over Europe (That's about the same strength as the British Army at that time).

Don't be sorry, I stand corrected. I was making an assumption, my US history teachers were mostly terrible.

Crap....I just took your word that I was wrong. Just minor googling shows me that I was essentially right, and what you speak of happened near the end of total allied control of Germany. We've essentially had bases there since the end of the war.
WIKI-
In practice, each of the four occupying powers wielded government authority in their respective zones and carried out different policies toward the population and local and state governments there. A uniform administration of the western zones evolved, known first as the Bizone (the American and British zones merged as of 1 January 1947) and later the Trizone (after inclusion of the French zone). The complete breakdown of east-west allied cooperation and joint administration in Germany became clear with the Soviet imposition of the Berlin Blockade that was enforced from June 1948 to May 1949. The three western zones were merged to form the Federal Republic of Germany in May 1949, and the Soviets followed suit in October 1949 with the establishment of the German Democratic Republic (GDR).

In the west, the occupation continued until 5 May 1955, when the General Treaty (German: Deutschlandvertrag) entered into force. However, upon the creation of the Federal Republic in May 1949, the military governors were replaced by civilian high commissioners, whose powers lay somewhere between those of a governor and those of an ambassador. When the Deutschlandvertrag became law, the occupation ended, the western occupation zones ceased to exist, and the high commissioners were replaced by normal ambassadors. West Germany was also allowed to build a military, and the Bundeswehr, or Federal Defense Force, was established on 12 November 1955.

Will YOU stand corrected? ...or was this a misunderstanding of what I meant by 'why the bases are in Germany', because I do understand those reasons have changed over time, as you indicated...I was talking about the original reason we stationed American military there.

I'm surprised these young ones don't know about the Pax Americana. This video made it sound like they don't teach any modern American history at all in school. What, do they stop at the war of 1812?

Makes perfect sense.

Spend billions of dollars helping other countries. Socialism. Something America seems violently allergic to within it's own country (just think of the social wrongs 100 bn dollars could right, right?)

Sorry, the "story" that the US is in any other country to protect it is just out and out bullshit. The US sets up bases wherever it goes just like England set up colony's when the famed claim "The sun never sets on the British Empire" was made... Because having a thumb in every pie allows it to flex it's might in subtle (or not so subtle) ways at the drop of a hat.

Remember, this is the same country that threatened multiple foreign economies with the GFC, causing destabilisation and hardship world wide. Sound like world leaders to you?

I love American's, they are awesome people and visiting your country never disappoints me at just how wonderful almost all the people I meet are. But America is a different kettle of fish. Perhaps one day Americans will finally decide to take back their country and make it like the propaganda says it is (greatest country in the world).

"defend against evil".
Should make you wary instantly.

And I laughed hard when I saw that they have 54,000 and 50,000 in Japan and Germany, where almost no threat exists, and only have 28,000 in South Korea where a real threat exists.

Sorry, but intelligent people dont buy this crap anymore. Its not the USA keeping the world safe, its cooperation. But if you stir up shit in the East, like right now and for the last few decades, there will be war. You cant expect people to stay peaceful when you invade their countries, install totalitarian regimes everywhere, finance and organize coup d'etats, sanction countries so only the people suffer and kill civilians everywhere with drones and cruise missiles. Its an audacious self-fulfilling prophecy, bullying tactics. You stir up shit and then when they get angry and attack you and those who support you, you point at them and say "told you so, you need our protection". And then furthermore have the audacity to blame other countries that do similar stuff in a MUCH smaller scale and mostly only due to the stuff you incited. Seriously... WTF? How stupid must you be to believe such bullshit of "world protection"???

Will I stand corrected? Hell no!
You are correct about why they were established, but the question remains, why are they still there?
And I think @Asmo hit the nail on the head, it's to exert power.
I mean, the U.S. have bases in Belgium and the Netherlands, surely those we're not established because they were not allowed to have their own military after the war. Or Portugal and Spain... or even the 10 bases in the UK.
The only exception to the once-we've-got-our-boot-in-the-door-we're-never-gonna-leave rule I've found is France, were they basically threw the U.S. out in 1966.

Then we were answering different questions.
No, I said only in Japan and Germany did it go that way.
You said I was wrong, and implied the bases in Germany weren't founded until 54, yet, as my Wiki quote said, we occupied Germany from the end of WW2 through that date, and (by many estimations) continue to 'occupy' them until today.
That means we had bases there the whole time, for the reason I stated originally.

EDIT: You hit the nail on the head, once there, we never leave, so the original reason we establish a base in a region is the real reason we have each base offshore...no matter what the excuse we SAY we KEEP them is in the future.

So you may stand uncorrected if you wish. I retract my 'standing corrected' because you were wrong, at least in what you implied (and I inferred), if not what you meant.

The unaddressed and unanswerable question is, what does the the world look like without a hegemon able to project power? Despots still abuse their citizens. Countries still invade each other. But by historical standards, the world is remarkably peaceful.

No land forcibly changed hands in Europe between 1946 and 2013. Now that some finally has, what are the democracies bordering Russia asking for? American bases.

I don't know if stability is worth $100 billion a year, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it is. What does the global economy look like if shipping isn't safe? How much production is lost when one country invades another, and refugees swarm across the border?

I don't like everything my country has done in the name of protecting world order, but I sure do like living in the most orderly world that has existed since our species evolved. It's natural for anyone under the age of 70 to take this for granted. But taking this for granted makes it impossible to properly weigh the benefits and costs of US military might.