I am approaching this topic from an uneducated position - but I would like to learn. Everyone, feel free to poke more holes in this than the Guerrico at South Georgia. One of the proposals for economising brought up during the latest rounds of cuts was disbanding British Forces Germany - but the point was raised was that this wouldn't actually incur any great saving in real terms because there isn't enough MoD property to house the soldiers returning from the Rhine and that just as much money would have to be spent building new bases for them. Even if Germany is no longer strategically vital, though, would it be possible to dispatch British Forces to other areas? One thought rattling around inside my head was a "British Forces Korea" - a contribution to the established American presence in South Korea. While it's well outside of our recent spheres of interest and influence, it strikes me as sensible for few reasons: -Troops would incur no great danger - it would not be an operational deployment. Despite occasional squabbles Korea is relatively quiet - it could probably be treated on the same level as the Falklands, no need for expensive campaign medals or hazard pay. -Obama gets to recall a few thousand US soldiers as British soldiers replace them, placating the left of his own party while not doing anything too controversial to inflame the right. He might be receptive to this with the expected drubbing in the upcoming midterms which would mean he'd want to grab all the help he can. -Strategically America would like it, as when Korea II kicks off, America has an immediate ally who will be able to make an actual practical frontline contribuition. -Britain doesn't have to invest anything in the deployment beyond salaries, as the facilities are already built - but we still benefit from increased influence. It seems sound to me, but I'm acting purely as the armchair general here so I'm sure that there are critical details that I'm missing. So, please, show up my ignorance - why is this a bad idea?