Why in the heck do you think it would be cheaper? First off the facilities don't exist in those locations to handle the current force structure here in Japan. Secondly those locations also only provide limited training options for the US Military, it's not like you are going to get cold weather training in Guam.
Next, Japan pays the brunt of the costs of maintaining the troops here, MY tax yen supports them, I want a better value for that yen then I am getting now.
That is funny. I suppose that Japan bought the tanks, jets, ships, pays the salaries of all the men/women, provides the food, housing, etc. I don't think so. If you think that you can get a better value of protection than the US forces please wake up. I have a very close connection with the Japanese government's connections to the bases. My fiance happens to be a teacher at one of them as an employee of the Japanese government. (off topic: this system is broken. it is frustrating to see a group of teachers that are less concerned with teacher Japanese and more concerned with keeping their boss in the Japanese BOE happy. In other words, they have 2 bosses and the more important to most of them is the admin side, not the school side.)
Japan helps pay for minor things such as mwr, host nation teachers, etc. I dont know the stats on this, if you can find them, please do. However, I am gonna guess that Japan's government pays for about 5% when the total cost is counted up; that is the high end.
Lets do some logical thinking here. You want a 'better value' than paying less than 10% (good guess) for a massive protection scheme. You consider this to be a bad value due to a 16/100000 crime rate.
This equals: Japan blows a lot of money in Guam, Hawaii, Las Vegas, etc. every year. Yes, they have a positive impact on the economy of the US. But I think they need to stop coming because they are committing crimes. Sure its not that many, probably about 5 a year, but I want a better value.
That is pretty faulty logic.
Since the majority of cons here are proxy issues, lets look at the pros that are likewise, proxy issues:
Oil: who protects japans lifeline of oil? Japan can't do it. I am not talking Iraq here, dont go there. I am talking about the fact that for 60 years we, the US have been protecting this.
What if: I see a lot of posts here about the fact that 'nothing ever happened that required them to be here'. Yep.... I am willing to bet that it was the very presence of our troops/forces that caused nothing to happen.
Scratch my back, but screw you: I get the feeling that a lot of posters here have no appreciation for the US's friendship/alliance. This is not exclusive to Japan. However, most posters here would probably still want the US to promise protection to the nation of Japan even if our forces weren't here. right? So, you want the protection of the US but not are not willing to allow us to have a bit of strategic basing.
Constitution: This is the biggy. Until Japan revises its constitution to allow it to have a more offensively capable force, it can not protect itself. The military realm does not rely on contemplating whether one's attack will be twarted. What keeps enemies at bay is threat of a counter-attack. Japan has no way to counter attack any possible foe, i.e. NK. If Japan wants us gone, we can leave. This won't happen until the Japanese government is confident that it is protected; the constitution must be changed to allow for an offensive capability.
If you go further into the 'counter attack' mentality. What will it be that keeps NK from possibly launching a nuke when they actually have one capable of firing to Japan? The threat of retaliation either in mass conventional style or in 'eye for an eye' style. Japan could probably hit NK with few cruise missiles, bombs ( from fighters since japan doesnt really have attack craft), but that wouldn't do much. Why is nk kept at bay? the mass forces that the US has at its border and the massive firepower it can quickly project from bases here, nuke subs, etc.
Let's face it, the US-Japan alliance is militarily one sided. Japan gets massively discounted defense, we get a few bases that help serve our needs as well as Japan's defense. We will protect Japan if it is ever attacked (which is why it won't be), Do you think that a possible enemy of the US would consider Japan's involvement if it attacked the US, probably not.
Given the US's current arsenals we really don't need bases here. We can hit very hard, very quickly, and very silently with our subs, b2's etc. from the 48 states in the mainland.
The Carrier group at Yokosuka is more firepower projection than all of Japan's Air/Sea power. How can you get a better value than that?
Answer this question: Who is gaining the most from the US presence in Japan?