Japan protests US military base
- Thread starter ShogunXXX
- Start date
-
Akiba-Online is sponsored by FileJoker.
FileJoker is a required filehost for all new posts and content replies in the Direct Downloads subforums.
Failure to include FileJoker links for Direct Download posts will result in deletion of your posts or worse.
For more information see this thread.
Code:
http://akiomatsumura.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Us-military-bases-abroad1.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/11/america-still-has-hundreds-military-bases-worldwide-have-they-made-us-any-safer
http://rt.com/usa/202223-noam-chomsky-global-terror/"The US closed many bases in Europe."
When one is closed, 5 or 10 others are opened somewhere else
"And hopefully they will be closed, too."
No hope, it's all about world domination, imperialism and control of natural resources, why should they abandon their ambitions ?
"So I'm surprised that they still build new bases in Japan. "
Guess what country is in front of Japan ? A big one that they see it as a threat to US interests. And any threat must be dominated, controlled and ideally invaded, bombed or even nuked in the name of democracy and human rights. Same cynical old song since WWII with millions of deaths, but who cares ?
A very political topic, but why not, are we just brainless little wankers unable to debate something serious ?
With Chinas' constant military and naval build-up threatening the whole region it makes sense to update and relocate military installations in Okinawa. This is reassuring to most countries in Asia who feel threatened and bullied. Not an opinion, just the truth.
There is less and less need for any American military installations in Europe but it costs more money, in the short term, to close these bases. About time they have got around to it though and I am positive that trend of closing bases will continue although logoistically some are needed to resupply ongoing operations in the Middle East.. Europe is now quite capable of defending itself from any threats in that arena of the world without us though, if they can ever act as a cohesive unit. Their lack of motivation in interfering in Crimea and the Ukraine is somewhat alarming though.
If Japan succeeds in rewriting or amending their constitution regarding their military I think that would be a great help. As it is they are barely allowed to defend themselves.
Most of the outcry over military bases is over land and having a few thousand somewhat boisterous trained killers hanging out. Despite the the economic surge that accompanies having a military base in an area soldiers have been known to break laws and make themselves unwelcome. They have every right to be there though, it is in Americas treaty with Japan.
Nice bait title.
Its not Japan who is protesting, its the people from okinawa who are doing it.
And no one really considers people from Okinawa to be Japanese anyways.
Not to mention one of the many people who voices themselves in these protests isnt even from japan but a femanazi from another country who unfortunately got r***ing there and now is screaming bloody murder non-stop.
Try again Shogun.
Its not Japan who is protesting, its the people from okinawa who are doing it.
And no one really considers people from Okinawa to be Japanese anyways.
Not to mention one of the many people who voices themselves in these protests isnt even from japan but a femanazi from another country who unfortunately got r***ing there and now is screaming bloody murder non-stop.
Try again Shogun.
"Try again Shogun. "
Trying what ? It's up to you to believe that the US has the right to set up military bases all over the world, to invade countries, to bomb populations and to enslave the world in the name of deadmocracy, freedom and human rights. It's up to you to be a patriot, to be a soldier or to work for or support the US military–industrial complex. The funny thing is that we are told that China, Russia or Al Qaeda are a threat to world peace.
Some figures
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/US_Bombing_campaigns_since_1945
http://www.countercurrents.org/polya050713.htm
Please do provide similar figures for the 3 just mentioned entities ?
We thank the US for having stopped Nazis and Japanese aggressors, no one can forget that. Nazis are gone and Japaneses are no more a threat but US soldiers are still here, more than half a century later..., and have no plan to leave. It is also the right to other peoples to be patriotic, to ask the sovereignty of their country to be respected and if needed to fight imperialism.
Trying what ? It's up to you to believe that the US has the right to set up military bases all over the world, to invade countries, to bomb populations and to enslave the world in the name of deadmocracy, freedom and human rights. It's up to you to be a patriot, to be a soldier or to work for or support the US military–industrial complex. The funny thing is that we are told that China, Russia or Al Qaeda are a threat to world peace.
Some figures
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/US_Bombing_campaigns_since_1945
http://www.countercurrents.org/polya050713.htm
Please do provide similar figures for the 3 just mentioned entities ?
We thank the US for having stopped Nazis and Japanese aggressors, no one can forget that. Nazis are gone and Japaneses are no more a threat but US soldiers are still here, more than half a century later..., and have no plan to leave. It is also the right to other peoples to be patriotic, to ask the sovereignty of their country to be respected and if needed to fight imperialism.
When I was stationed in South Korea back in 2002-2003 there always locals protesting US military bases.I imagine that is like that anywhere there is a US military base on foreign soil. Most people who are nationalistic or patriotic do not want some other country's troops inside their own country.
Its been almost 70 years since the end of WWII so I think the US should start closing or even transferring the military bases to the Japanese and let the Japanese start defending themselves. The people who ran the war are dead on both sides and most of the people who did the fighting in WWII if still alive are in nursing homes.
Technically it is worth noting here that North and South Korea are still at war.
While I tend to agree to the same sentiment that Japan should be freed from the conditions of their unconditional-surrender, in much the same way that Germany has been, it is worth noting that Japan has some serious enemies nearby that have long memories. I beieve the JSDF has the 6th largest defense budget in the world and is one of the worlds most modern armies. However, akin to US bases in South korea, the US bases serve as a deterrent to neighborhood agression. To say the US should just leave the area and let them "duke it out" if that is what they want also means abandoning our allies as well as US economic interests in that region to whatever happens. That is a pretty tough sell. Think the US aren't welcome in SouthEast Asia? We have had more requests for joint military training operations than ever before, this includes Vietnam. Surprisingly even China has showed interest in joint naval training exercises with the US. A cold war suffers fewer casulaties and makes even fewer enemies.
I guess that is the point: The US as well as some of their allies think that having military presents everywhere will ensure freedom. But as we can see it doesn't. Alliances ensure freedom. Europe is a good example. After the war 1871, the 1st and 2nd world war France and Germany (and some others) founded the European Union. They have a joined economy program as well as even joined forces. It is more than unlikely that they will start to fight each other ever again. But there is no such alliance with Russia. And also in Asia there is not such a strong alliance e.g. between China, Japan, Korea and the rest. They should start establishing such an alliance.
And joint military training are also a good way. They should be held as often as possible. But no one should have (regular) bases outside its own country. If someone needs actual help the others can go there and help.
E.g. I also didn't understand why the US want to have some anti-missile devices in Eastern Europe. Against whom? Terrorists? Against Russia? If Russia would start a war against e.g. Poland it would be a different story like the e.g. Ukraine as Poland is in the EU as well as in the NATO. I guess that is also the reason why Russia start to fight with the Ukraine as they are not in any of these alliances (yet).
I agree to previous posts that the US did their last positive intervention(s) in WWII. But since then they failed (the military as well as their agencies).
Maybe also a reason why Europe tries everything to stop the Ukraine crisis without arms.
And joint military training are also a good way. They should be held as often as possible. But no one should have (regular) bases outside its own country. If someone needs actual help the others can go there and help.
E.g. I also didn't understand why the US want to have some anti-missile devices in Eastern Europe. Against whom? Terrorists? Against Russia? If Russia would start a war against e.g. Poland it would be a different story like the e.g. Ukraine as Poland is in the EU as well as in the NATO. I guess that is also the reason why Russia start to fight with the Ukraine as they are not in any of these alliances (yet).
I agree to previous posts that the US did their last positive intervention(s) in WWII. But since then they failed (the military as well as their agencies).
Maybe also a reason why Europe tries everything to stop the Ukraine crisis without arms.
Great post CodeGeek and nice perspective.
There aren't too many US military interventions I don't support, personally. I thought we did a great job in Korea, NATO, as a group, failed pretty miserably there (give them an A for effort). Vietnam was a mess, we didn't want another Korea and thought the North Vietnamese would lose heart. We were wrong but to be fair the French were wrong before us and we were asked to be there, we did not invade, we supported a freindly regime. Bad call that one. I got no problem with the Panama or Greneda invasions, both were good calls in my opinion. Somalia was another mess and so was Yugoslovia (although we were with NATO there). We should have stayed out of both those but it wasn't my call. Desert Shield was another good call, everyone and their mother had our back on that one. Lebanon was another bad call but no one else was giving Isreal any help so I at least understand that one. Invading Afghanistan and Iraq? Not very popular, no doubt. Someone was going to pay for 9/11 and if we had got more support from Europe then just maybe the Middle East would be a more peaceful place but Europe had been ignoring that sore spot for decades as if they were hoping it would go away. Guess what? It got worse. Blame the US for that if you want, but it wasn't going to get better either way. At least we showed the people in that region they have a choice, that fighting against despotic regimes is an option. (I mean they still behead people over there and the US gets shit over waterboarding? come the fuck on.)
I have no idea why anybody would mind anti-missile systems, they are purely defensive in nature and have no offensive capability. Just one of those things you would rather have and not use than need and not have.
The world can be a better place but just minding your own business isn't going to help make it that way. Before WWII Europe had their hand in a lot of pies, they invented the term Imperialism. People forget though, that unlike Europe of that age, America isn't looking to conquer anybody. We merely want peace and prosperity. We just want someone we can do business with like civilized people. Extending our territory hasn't been our goal for a hundred years.
There aren't too many US military interventions I don't support, personally. I thought we did a great job in Korea, NATO, as a group, failed pretty miserably there (give them an A for effort). Vietnam was a mess, we didn't want another Korea and thought the North Vietnamese would lose heart. We were wrong but to be fair the French were wrong before us and we were asked to be there, we did not invade, we supported a freindly regime. Bad call that one. I got no problem with the Panama or Greneda invasions, both were good calls in my opinion. Somalia was another mess and so was Yugoslovia (although we were with NATO there). We should have stayed out of both those but it wasn't my call. Desert Shield was another good call, everyone and their mother had our back on that one. Lebanon was another bad call but no one else was giving Isreal any help so I at least understand that one. Invading Afghanistan and Iraq? Not very popular, no doubt. Someone was going to pay for 9/11 and if we had got more support from Europe then just maybe the Middle East would be a more peaceful place but Europe had been ignoring that sore spot for decades as if they were hoping it would go away. Guess what? It got worse. Blame the US for that if you want, but it wasn't going to get better either way. At least we showed the people in that region they have a choice, that fighting against despotic regimes is an option. (I mean they still behead people over there and the US gets shit over waterboarding? come the fuck on.)
I have no idea why anybody would mind anti-missile systems, they are purely defensive in nature and have no offensive capability. Just one of those things you would rather have and not use than need and not have.
The world can be a better place but just minding your own business isn't going to help make it that way. Before WWII Europe had their hand in a lot of pies, they invented the term Imperialism. People forget though, that unlike Europe of that age, America isn't looking to conquer anybody. We merely want peace and prosperity. We just want someone we can do business with like civilized people. Extending our territory hasn't been our goal for a hundred years.
Given the developments with Russia in the past year I think you're probably wrong, US were closing bases in Europe but that'll probably stop now given the new territorial ambitions of Kaiser Putin.
I think one of the bigger reasons people are upset is the status of forces agreements that makes US soldiers & bases immune to local prosecution, unless the US is feeling gracious.
But I might be wrong of course, my guess is only based on stuff I've read as Sweden doesn't have any US military bases
Well it would seem obvious that it's a posture against Russia, through NATO the US has an obligation to defend a lot of the Eastern European countries and there's the old adage Si vis pacem, para bellum(if you want peace, prepare for war). So it's better to make it obvious to Russia that a first strike scenario would fail or at least be much less devastating than intended.
And yeah, Russia is flexing and the only place in Europe they could do that without starting WWIII is Ukraine.
Last edited:
A big part of the problem with the Okinawan air base, is the same thing that happens to a lot of airports. They get built near a city, then the city builds up around it and then complains about the "dangerous" noisy air traffic over the city.
I think one of the bigger reasons people are upset is the status of forces agreements that makes US soldiers & bases immune to local prosecution, unless the US is feeling gracious.
But I might be wrong of course, my guess is only based on stuff I've read as Sweden doesn't have any US military bases
Things have changed in Japan, there are US servicemen in Japanese jail, or at least convicted of crimes on Japanese soil concerning Japanese citizens. There is the the same problem in America, where US military personnel have a certain amount of immunity from local prosecution. This is actually easier to understand than one might think, if you can be somewhat open-minded about it.
First off: US military personnel do not have the same rights as American citizens. Really, this is very true, they are basically property of the the US government. That is why they are called G.I. Joes' (Government Issue). Local autorities do not have jurisdiction over the federal government, that includes in America and abroad.
Secondly: Military personnel, especially those based abroad, are in a constant state of readiness. A soldiers sole duty is to follow orders and be ready to kill the enemy at a moments notice. The US military tends to feel responsible and protective of their men. They would rather handle problems "in house" as their service personnel conduct is their responsibility.
you make out these guys are all combat ready heros
the reality is that whereever there is a US military base there is a huge surge in crime, violence, prostitution and drugs
marines gang raping kids
sargeant raping 13 year old before killing her
the list of crimes commited by us service men in civilised countries is endless, let alone in warzones
in civilised countries, and I include okinawa in this statement, we have the rule of law, the us military imposes its own rules and undermines the rule of law, especially when an accused serviceman is aided and abetted by their co by immediately being airlifted out of a country to escape local law enforcement jurisdiction
you are protecting murders and rapists, who are then free to murder and r*** back at home
Actually the US armed forces based in Japan and Okinawa are combat ready heroes. They proved that during rescue operations following the earthquakes and tsunami that hit Japan.
The reality is that the US military is not the cause of the majority of prostitution and crime that surounds their bases, that is caused by those seeking to profit by their being there, and that would be a local element, not a foreign one.
There are thousands of US military personnel in Okinawa alone (62% of the military bases in Japan are there) and no, they are not all angels. The vast majority however do not commit heinous crimes against the Japanese people and the crimes by US servicemen are far less than those committed by the locals on each other. That is fact not fiction.
If you think that the US military does not prosecute murders and rapists within their ranks you are sadly misinformed.
However these soldiers are there because they are ordered to be there, they are not there by choice. The hostility towards these soldiers, in general, is not only misplaced, it is counter-productive. I do understand the hostility towards specific soldiers who have committed unspeakable acts against defensless women and children, we all understand that. To condemn all US soldiers as evil based on the acts of a few is foolish though. The most important thing is for the Okinawan government and its' people to work in concert with the US military to prevent such atrocities from happening. Because the fact is, the US military isn't going to leave there in the near future. Like it or not, that is just the way it is.
Sorry in advance for the long post
I was always under the impression that the term G.I Joe stems from WWII and stands for General Infantry or Ground Infantry as a slang for American ground troops.
I think that solving things "in house" is problematic becuase it creates a similar image as most police forces have, that they close ranks and protect their own the facts and society be damned.
And the fact that the military typically (though not always as you've mentioned) insists on prosecuting their members in their own legal system which might contribute to a general feeling that they're protecting their own over the local population if/when the accused is whisked off to somewhere else to stand trial.
I think that even when the military prosecutes their own according to the UCMJ the proceedings should be held in the local language(whenever possible or have a translator have a running commentary) in a local court(or other suitable locale if the community is willing to provide one) that way there will be transparency and the local community can actually see that the accused gets properly prosecuted and punished(if found guilty), I think that would probably help to alleviate some of the tension if the news and the public could easily witness the proceedings, in a language they can readily understand..
Well that's good, I do understand the need for it in your own nation etc, and generally military courts are much harsher, but on foreign soil I think it's a bad idea to be able to supersede local legislation, at least in a supposed peaceful democracy(the case would obviously be different in a place like Saudi Arabia which doesn't have due process etc.), I think that it probably creates a lot of unneccessary friction if/when service members commit crimes in friendly nations as it can create an image that they're not being punished and that they're getting off the hook merely because they're with the military. Plus a nation ceding sovereignty over individuals in it's territory is problematic for a whole lot of other reasons(this is different from diplomatic immunity since that relates to very few individuals and which generally are fairly senior officials).
Yeah I do know that you cede some citizen rights as a member of the armed forces,this holds true pretty much everywhere because a military organisation cannot exist as a civilian entity, it'd never work(I've done military service in my own country).
I was always under the impression that the term G.I Joe stems from WWII and stands for General Infantry or Ground Infantry as a slang for American ground troops.
You're exaggerating a fair bit, something like that would be true for Afghanistan or Iraq but troops deployed to friendly nations does not have the same combat readiness as troops deployed to a conflict zone, they might be ready to be deployed at short notice but I seriously doubt that barring perimeter sentries and MP's the soldiers carry a loaded firearm with them wherever they go, combat vehicles are generally not battle ready and loaded with ammo etc, unless the base is at some sort of elevated threat condition. Because that'd very much be an unjustified security risk, and would massively increase the chances of things going "missing". munitions are generally stored for safekeeping than for immediate use.
I think that solving things "in house" is problematic becuase it creates a similar image as most police forces have, that they close ranks and protect their own the facts and society be damned.
No the military base is not the cause in the sense that they're not the ones doing the crimes, but it's also a fact that there is a direct correlation. So the elements might be local but the catalyst is foreign.
Agreed, preconceptions/prejudice about any group of people is generally bad and most of the time off the mark. And yes, members of the armed forces are typically less prone to criminal activities then the general population since military traditions tends to put weight on certain values that generally doesn't mix well with heavy crime.
Agreed, military jurisprudence is typically much harsher than the civilian equivalent in terms of sentences if not fines.
While I agree with you it's also true that the military usually paints itself as a group and not as individuals, so it's quite natural that any hostility or generalized assumptions be aimed at the group as a whole as well. It's unfortunate but it's the reality.
And the fact that the military typically (though not always as you've mentioned) insists on prosecuting their members in their own legal system which might contribute to a general feeling that they're protecting their own over the local population if/when the accused is whisked off to somewhere else to stand trial.
I think that even when the military prosecutes their own according to the UCMJ the proceedings should be held in the local language(whenever possible or have a translator have a running commentary) in a local court(or other suitable locale if the community is willing to provide one) that way there will be transparency and the local community can actually see that the accused gets properly prosecuted and punished(if found guilty), I think that would probably help to alleviate some of the tension if the news and the public could easily witness the proceedings, in a language they can readily understand..
I actually read all that. That is the most I have been quoted in any post since I have been here, and that is saying something. Thanks for the interest.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion but these are not diplomats nor peace officers or American citizens and they are certainly not tourists that we are talking about and most importantly, they are not under the jurisdiction of the Japanese government. These are US military personnel stationed in Japan as per our treaty with that government. So it does not matter what would be nice, what is civilized is to treat all breaches of Japanese law by US military with the respect it deserves and as a matter between Japan and the US according to any standing agreements between them.
In total I estimate 50,000 US armed forces in Japan, (not including families and civilian support units as they are not the topic of conversation), and you do not station that large of a force in an area, outside your own country, without a much higher state of readiness than average. There are many small US bases abroad that have well less than 100 personnel,, (these would relaxed duties comparably). While Japan is of course not a warzone there is a higher potential for armed conflict in the area than say.....Italy. For example: North and South Korea are still technically at war, Taiwan is still offically considered to be a part of China (by the Chinese government anyway), and many of the Ryukyu Islands, including Okinawa, are in dispute with other countries (particularly China) over ownership. While hopefully cool heads will prevail the military does not deal in "hopefully". Make no mistake, it is the officers duty there to see to it that their personnel are on their toes. So no, I don't think I am overstating it a bit. Just because these boys may karoake with the locals, that is not why they are there and they know it. Additionally none of the military there (or many US citizens here) hope for war, like all sane men they fear it.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion but these are not diplomats nor peace officers or American citizens and they are certainly not tourists that we are talking about and most importantly, they are not under the jurisdiction of the Japanese government. These are US military personnel stationed in Japan as per our treaty with that government. So it does not matter what would be nice, what is civilized is to treat all breaches of Japanese law by US military with the respect it deserves and as a matter between Japan and the US according to any standing agreements between them.
In total I estimate 50,000 US armed forces in Japan, (not including families and civilian support units as they are not the topic of conversation), and you do not station that large of a force in an area, outside your own country, without a much higher state of readiness than average. There are many small US bases abroad that have well less than 100 personnel,, (these would relaxed duties comparably). While Japan is of course not a warzone there is a higher potential for armed conflict in the area than say.....Italy. For example: North and South Korea are still technically at war, Taiwan is still offically considered to be a part of China (by the Chinese government anyway), and many of the Ryukyu Islands, including Okinawa, are in dispute with other countries (particularly China) over ownership. While hopefully cool heads will prevail the military does not deal in "hopefully". Make no mistake, it is the officers duty there to see to it that their personnel are on their toes. So no, I don't think I am overstating it a bit. Just because these boys may karoake with the locals, that is not why they are there and they know it. Additionally none of the military there (or many US citizens here) hope for war, like all sane men they fear it.
Last edited:
Well what can I say, I like debate and I guess I can get a bit longwinded at times
Well it's not up to me to decide
And as I live on the other side of the globe hardly something that affects me. I do wonder though if Japanese police has the authority to arrest military personnel when they're off base?It matters in keeping relations with the local population which is typically something you'd want to keep on a good footing because troops on leave usually don't want to sit in their barracks and if they were turned away from every bar/store/establishment then that would become a morale and order/discipline issue eventually or the military would have to fly them elsewhere for their leave.
It's something that would cost the US military very little so while they're not required to do so it might in the end be in their interest to do so in order not to set the population against them.
I generally think that the US should maintain a military presence because you only have to look at a map to understand the strategic importance of the ryukyu islands and as you say the general area isn't as stable as we might wish.
Are you in the military? Just curious because you sound like you have a fair bit of knowledge at least
And well, just to be clear here, I'm making a difference between deployment readiness and combat readiness which are two quite separate things. At least not according to what I was taught where combat readiness meant being able to be out in your foxhole within minutes and being able to strike camp, be packed and mounted in 30-60 minutes, essentially something you only maintain in an actual warzone because it's stressful as you'll be carrying around a weapon and ammo everywhere you go and sleeping in your uniform ,with your boots on with all your gear packed right next to you.
The Air Force(AFB Kadena) probably maintains at least one flight of aircraft on some manner of scramble alert and it's normal for MP's/perimeter security to have squads at a similar state of scramble readiness.
But I'd guess that the III MEF has a similar rapid deployment mission as the I MEF which from I understand means the ability to deploy a fighting force on the ground within 48 hours anywhere in their area of operations, which means that their heavier equipment will be packed and ready for transport and rifles etc will generally be stored in a weapons locker for security when you're not training with it.
A lot of the US military presence according to official sources(which of course means that some of it can be a cover for more clandestine units since you don't go around telling people about those) seems to be mostly elements you'd expect from a forward/intermediate supply organisation so essentially it seems to be the C3(Command, Control & Communications), Supply & Logistics elements necessary for a much larger potential future deployment rather than actual combat troops aside from the III MEF and Kadena AFB.
While the area is unstable the troops and logistics required to facilitate an invasion of Japan or any other sort of major military operation is not something you can hide(the amount of fuel & ammunition a fighting mechanized platoon consume during operations is staggering and requires a significant logistics operation to support(something one would hope the Taliban won't learn or they'd just be attacking the convoys of tanker trucks required keep an M1 Abrahms or a Bradley IFV rolling) instead of the actual Tanks & APC's).
And yeah I agree, no sane person wants a war. But there's truth in the old adage Si vis pacem para bellum, which coincidentally apparently is the motto of one of the III MEF units stationed in Okinawa.
Last edited:
Actually if you total the families of military personnel, civilian support elements and local contractors the US armed forces could be said to have a presence of over 100,000 people. But that is just the officical version, it is probably even larger. I mean the whole seventh fleet is stationed there and they are very active. The 7th Fleet has around 70 ships and 40,000 Navy and Marine personnel.
Any clandestine operations are probably carried out by one of the many US Air Bases in Japan (as a matter of fact this thread is concerning Futenma airbase). There are Marine bases as well, (the US was supposed to relocate 9,000 of them from Okinawa but they haven't got around to it), but they are not generally the sneaky type (they are capable but Marines are "First in" type of guys). What is fairly clear is that the exact number and deployment of US forces in Japan is being a bit obscured but that is par-for-the-course with the military. There are 23 official US bases in Japan and yes, many are supply bases and ammo dumps.
Isn't the US 7th fleet based out of Yokosuka? But in all of Japan then yeah there's significant fighting elements(several AFB's afaik, the III MEF and the 7th Fleet as you mentioned) From what I've been able to read there was somewhere around 27000 US military personnel(15,000 of which are marines were stationed on Okinawa back around 2002, which is unlikely to have grown much since given the delicate situation with the general public in Okinawa.
Didn't know they hadn't gotten around to moving those 8000-9000 marines yet. But yeah I imagine you base clandestine units somewhere with easy access to an airstrip.
Yeah, they're usually fairly open about what troops elements(divisions, squadrons, air wings, fleet elements etc) are deployed where and since the rough organisation of troops elements are generally reasonably known/estimated you can get a decent grip of the amount of manpower involved. The military has some interest in making it known just how much force is stationed where as a deterrent unless it's more sensitive stuff, B-2's, SOCOM units, nukes etc.