Foreign military bases in the US?

Japan did get conquered in war, though, as did Germany. Both are militarily non-existent compared to the United States. So it isn’t surprising there is an imbalance of power between those countries in terms of placement of military bases.

As for the secret agreement I alluded to, here is an article about it: link

However, the secret pact has not been the issue which caused the problem, the Americans were exercising their rights under the secret agreement. It was the agreement itself.

As for losing the war, that doesn’t explain the difference between the greater imbalance between it’s treatment and Germany’s.

I don’t know enough about the period of occupation following World War II or our current and historical deployments in Japan post-occupation to really know either. The one thing I have always heard in various histories is that the United States desired a strong West Germany so there would be more of a bulwark against the Soviets in Western Europe; Japan being an Island I don’t think there was ever near the same level of desire.

Japan’s wings have definitely remained clipped to a much further degree than Germany’s in terms of military forces, even to this day. However, from what I can tell at least since the 1980s the international community (aside from China if I had to guess) hasn’t had any real issue with the Japanese having their own fighting force. From what I can tell Japan as a society isn’t really sure it wants a strong military and that is why they haven’t re-militarized to any degree greater than they currently are. You would probably know more than I about this, but my impression from scattered news articles and reports of small Japanese deployments in military zones is that they have been steadily increasing their military force over the past decade.

In English law, a US serviceman/woman breaking the law even if on duty would be subject to the English courts, and the English courts only, if there wasn’t statutory authority for the relevant SoFA(s). And similarly, enforcement of military discipline would be next to impossible. I’d be surprised if US law doesn’t have a similar set of provisions somewhere.

The situation may differ in Germany, where I believe that international agreements are automatically binding in domestic law. On the other hand, that is presumably subject to constitutional safeguards.
A bit later…

After a bit of poking around, US Code Title 22 Chapter 13 seems to contain the provisions regarding enforcement of foreign military law within the US. I can’t see that it covers all military discipline, though, which seems odd. For example, locking up someone pending their court martial doesn’t seem to be covered. Perhaps I’m missing something…?

Customary international law takes direct effect in German law and ranks above statutes (but below the constitution), but that does not apply to agreements. Agreements need to be implemented in German law by means of a statute, which, however, is not much of an issue - since parliamentary approval is required for the conclusion of an agreement, legislators simply approve the treaty and adopt the implementing statute in a go.

In Britain, it’s somewhat similar. It’s established doctrine that customary international law is part of the common law and thus takes direct effect (but ranks below Acts of Parliament), which does not apply to agreements - they need to be implemented legislatively. Which is more of a deal in the UK, since there the executive alone can ratify treaties without parliamentary approval.

Since Germany was right in the path between the Soviets and France and the UK, it makes sense, although I don’t claim any particular expertise on the subject.

Japanese society, (with the exception of the right wing nuts) has not been really excited about rebuilding a strong military. There weren’t any real discussions,“soul searching” or looking at the causes of the war and subsequent defeat after WWII. The left was strongly anti-military; an example can be seen in the resistance from school teachers to singing the national anthem or standing for the Hi-no-maru flag.

My take is that the Japanese government privately acquiesced to many of the US demands in order to not get into public discussions; although this is just one of many reasons for accepting a weaker bargaining position. Certainly, the Japanese elected to “lease” US forces rather than fully develop their own.

The size of Japanese forces probably isn’t changing that much over the last decade (just a WAG, I will be happy to be corrected if this is different) but there seems to be tentative steps at allowing the Self Defense Forces to be used in areas which are “close” to war zones. When SDF units were deployed to Iraq, in support roles, the fiction was that these were “non-combat” areas.

While most of the neighbors haven’t been particularly thrilled with a re-armed Japan, the growing threat from China is a game-changer. The Japanese public certainly isn’t happy with Chinese aggression and their in-you-face diplomacy such as the 2010 Senkaku boat collision incident Whether that translates into a greater acceptance of their own military is yet to be seen.

The ruling party came to power with the idea of drawing away from the States and coming closer to China, but the public anger has squelched that idea, even if the politicians fail to see the folly of that approach.

But not necessarily when you’re on duty. I remember that about ten years ago, two american pilots flying too low damaged the cable of a cable car, resulting in its fall and in a number of deaths.

They weren’t supposed to fly that low, but apparently did it for fun.

I remember that the Italian public was outraged that they wouldn’t be tried in Italy, but by American military courts instead.

This is specifically covered by the SOFA between countries which typically include the provision that any possible criminal acts resulting from actions during on duty are the jurisdiction of the US military.

There’s an RAF Squadron that conducts combat operations from a base in the continental USA:

No. 39 Squadron, based at Creech AFB in Nevada, operates the UK Reaper drones in the Afghan theatre

Why?

Because the US Southwest has huge amounts of open space and clear skies. Those are rare commodities in northern Europe.

Also, the United States is a member of NATO and it behooves the organization’s military forces to train together.

I’m not sure why you spoiler-boxed that, but my guess for the reason for this is that the territory and geography in Nevada is closer to that in Afghanistan than anything they’re likely to find in the UK.

That’s a good reason to train there. It doesn’t follow that operations should be based there.

Turkey and (used to?) Israel have a similar arrangement, where Israel would exchange maintenance for Turkey’s vast airspace

I suspect it’s because Britain is piggy-backing on the existing US Reaper satellite facilities over Afghanistan.

Spoilered for an much-needed injection of drama! Note that they are carrying out combat operations from there, the Reapers are actually in Afghanistan.

TokyoPlayer: I can’t speak for the Koreans as a whole, but you might enjoy hearing that one young Korean airman I met a few months back seemed to consider Japan to be a friend alongside the Americans in keeping the North Koreans at bay. Whether he is imagining the Japanese SDF coming to their aid, or more in terms of diplomatic and economic support, I wasn’t really clear on. I’d imagine that if this is a widely-held viewpoint in Korea, it’s probably somewhat age-dependent (ie: youngsters are probably more flexible to the idea of buddying up with the Japanese than the older folks might).

Of course, hard times make for strange friends in any case.

As a kind of inverse of the example of British and other NATO forces operating from American bases, I do recall that there are a number of foreign bases that the Americans operate from (technically, our bases in Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the UK are all examples of us being guests on their bases. I’m told that in the case of Korea and Japan, this is why you get names such as Osan Air Base or Yokota Air Base, as opposed to Lackland Air Force Base or McChord Air Force Base, American-owned installations in the United States. The UK bases don’t even have “Air Base” in the name as I recall, instead having Royal Air Force-styled names (RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall, for example).

I’d imagine the UK examples might just be indicative of the relative bargaining positions as well. We never exactly conquered the British, after all.

It will be interesting to watch how the Japanese change their views of the military now that the people with direct experience of the horror of the war are getting old, while combined with the threat from a nuclear armed, crazy-assed North Korea and a belligerent China.

Most Japanese didn’t feel particularly threatened during the cold war. That may change now.