At least they don't have to shout "bang"....yet

[Vuk]

I agree with you partially but not completely. There have been multiple nations that have bankrupted themselves on constant wars and large well trained standard armies. The France of Louis XIV is one example. Even today there are people in North Korea who are starving and living in poverty because a ridiculously high percentage of there budget goes into keeping one the worlds largest army. Standing army's, if anything are extremely costly. Can units not be raised relatively quickly to make up for any gaps in manpower? Paying for a two to three million strong standing army that chews up billions of dollars a year in peace time is ridiculous. There are better things that can be spent on. I am not avocation that we do away with a standing army, I'm just saying that it should not be at the same strength and size in peace time as it is in war time.
However it is a fine line. If you underfund the army in peace time then in a time of war the U.S. (or any other country for that matter) could be overran before there is time to mobilize it's forces. There is no resason what so ever to cut funding on new technolegy proper training of the army we have, and replacing obselete equitment.

I believe that you misunderstand me. I am not saying we need an immense army, but simply one that could defend us if we were attacked. A good-sized, well-equipped, welltrained, wellinformed fighting force and the ability to raise more and supply them on the spot.
We can't claim that today, stuff has to change.
(I get you point, but I'm not saying we need a massive invasion force, but just a respectable army like ol' Teddy had.)

[BDC]

(I get you point, but I'm not saying we need a massive invasion force, but just a respectable army like ol' Teddy had.)

Why? Even a small modern army can call in enough firepower to make any army from any point in the past ashamed. Anyone invading America would be obliterated.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I believe that you misunderstand me. I am not saying we need an immense army, but simply one that could defend us if we were attacked. A good-sized, well-equipped, welltrained, wellinformed fighting force and the ability to raise more and supply them on the spot.
We can't claim that today, stuff has to change.
(I get you point, but I'm not saying we need a massive invasion force, but just a respectable army like ol' Teddy had.)

Well currently your army is poorly trained, badly organised and overweight. America is THE example that throwing money at the military is not the answer.

More importantly, something you all fail to realise is that it takes a year to train a soldier to an acceptable standard, six months at a push, maybe less for light infantry.

Therefore a defensive army needs to be able to hold out without significant re-enforcements for a year or more.

That's not possible for any current military.