@ Putin33

You're right about too much dependence on Reserve/Guard units. Hell, I know *National Guard* guys who got deployed 4 times!

Stoploss was used against mostly Reserves and National Guard, not regular army.

Reserve and National Guard comprised nearly 30% of troops deployed to Afghanistan in Iraq over the course of 10 years.

http://hiddensurge.nationalsecurityzone.org/nsjihs_special_pages/changing-of-the-guard/

If that doesn't say the volunteer army is breaking apart at the seams then what does?

"I think the armed forces need to be split into two. One; a large body of conscripted soldiers and reservists, in case shit really hits the fan one day. Two; a small body of highly trained specialists, marines, SEALs, commandos, pilots etc."

This is how Switzerland does it. I love their system. Most men from 18-55 are obliged to spend one week every year in military training, then go back to being civilian again. They have cool failback features too, such as a pieces of highway that are designated to double as runway in case of emergency. I once hear too of a hidden F-16 base somewhere in the Alps, but don't know if that's true.

Bottom line: the Swiss have a pretty worthless army when it comes to invading people. But they can defend the fuck out of their country if need be. Ideal combo imho.

Fun fact: The Swiss have blasting holes drilled in all of the bridges and tunnels leading into switzerland. Once, they were filled with explosives, but they recently took them out.

They are prepared to tough out anything. They also have nuclear shelters for like 80% of the population.

That doesn't help if the enemy invades to open the doors before the nukes hit though...

Also 80% sounds like a weird choice... The other 20% aren't worth it?

Most countries don't have shelters for nearly that proportion of the population. Certainly I don't think there is a country that exists that has nuclear shelters for its entire population

Ah yes, those great vaulted door in each basement. Loved them as a kid.

Every modern building has a bombshelter (nuclear? Not sure). The 20% is basically older buildings, or exception in some other way.

"I think the armed forces need to be split into two. One; a large body of conscripted soldiers and reservists, in case shit really hits the fan one day. Two; a small body of highly trained specialists, marines, SEALs, commandos, pilots etc."

Sofa generals re-fighting the last few wars, I love it. And so do the terrorists. I recon that the combined membership of webdip could take out the media, communications, stock exchanges and banks of say Switzerland or holland. Terrorists aren't interested in land grabs and conquests. How are your millions of reservists and elite going to stop them?

@Maniac,
My conscripted army wouldn't be for terrorists in the slightest. Elite forces should deal with them. Just like the navy with its high degree of organization deals with pirates and so on. The conscripted army would be in case some large nation we have no deep military ties with such as N-Korea, Russia, China, etc. would decide to become hostile toward the west. I believe - essentially - that we will see conflicts in the future as part of a bimodal distribution; they will either be limited conflicts, such as the war on drugs, the war on terror, the Gulf Wars, where one side has overwhelming superiority and the engaging nation continues to function as normal, or very large scale conflicts such as a conflict between the west and the east. I can't imagine any future conflict that would lie somewhere between these two extremes. History reports, out of the top of my head, several such examples: the Franco-Prussian war, with a considerable French military but ultimately overwhelmed by the Prussians, I think the end of WWII had these intermediate elements, with the allied powers being much larger than the axis powers, but still requiring a protracted conflict to win, but I don't think it'll be like that in the future: we'll either be much stronger or similarly strong.

We need more cavalry. Nothing's better at putting the wind up Johnny Al Qaeda than a line of lancers with polished breast plates charging at them!

In all seriousness I have some concerns about Redhouse's elite forces idea. You can only have an elite worthy of the name if you have a strong pool of regulars to draw them from. The likes of the SAS and the Yank equivalents (Navy Sea Cows or something along those lines) are made up of the best of an already good bunch. Reduce your regulars, or replace them with weekend soldiers, and your elites won't be what they used to be.

I strongly disagree, Octavious. How difficult is it really to draw an elite from something? You can do all sorts of tests: marksmanship, physical aptitude, intelligence, ability to cooperate, ability to follow and lead. I believe these are all things to a large degree "testable" and I have no doubt that my country at least will be able to fill the ranks of the elite corps (plural).

I'll probably get blasted for this (in fact I'm sure I will)...

But I'd like to see MORE defense spending cuts as far as the US military goes.

We spend more than the next five countries (China, Russia, the UK, Japan, and France) out together. That's ridiculous. That's really, just really ridiculous.

It was ridiculous when Eisenhower came out and warned about a military/industrial complex then, and it's ridiculous now.

I'm not saying we should make the military "worse" or America less safe...

But are we honestly that frightened of the world that we need to spend THAT MUCH, and not distribute some of that money to other areas that sorely need attention (or, hey, maybe working in cutting down the deficit and/or debt the GOP is always hawking about.)

For those out there who will inevitably disagree--

When our primary enemies today (nations like Iran and North Korea, global terror cells, China in a more abstract sense--I highly doubt the Chinese are thinking of nuking a trading partner they're bleeding for so much cash, and we could cut the budget by nearly half and still outspend Russia)...

Why do we need this amount of military spending?

Why should we be so militaristic that cutting a military budget that's run away with itself in terms of sheer size and dwarfs domestic programs not referring to the medical industry or Social Security is considered "weak?"

Are you really suggesting that if we cut this huge budget by--let's be extremely conservative--100 billion, the Taliban would be bombing the Sears Tower or Disneyland the next day and Al Qaeda would be flying planes into the Capitol Building like life straight out of a Tom Clancy novel and Russia would be marching down Russia (and Sarah Palin would be the first to see the troops!) as they seized Seattle and San Francisco and all the world would just suddenly descend on America because, hey, surely the #1 priority of every other country on Earth not named Canada, Australia or the UK is to bomb the shit out America because they all hate us?

...

OK, well, yeah, maybe a good portion of them hate us, but this obsessive and excessive military spending and militaristic mindset really isn't helping that.

Granted, neither are statements like "You're with us or you're with the terrorists" or, to be fair and swipe at this administration, spy on allies and bug the phones of Germany's chancellor (DON'T GET THE GERMANS MAD!!!) ;)

The best reason I can think of for maintaining anywhere close to this level of military spending is that it does mean contracting and building and engineering jobs for people, and we don't want those going away while we're still trying to recover economically.

That being said, I'd like to think a nation that repeatedly calls itself "The Greatest Country on Earth" (ignoring for the fact the British Empire said that once, as did the Soviet Union, Imperial France in its day, Spain before that little Armada went down the drain, and the Roman Empire before that, and Alexander's Empire before that, and the Greek city-states before that, so yeah, not a unique OR promising boast) would be able to redirect those contracting, building and engineering jobs towards something more positive (our infrastructure could use some work, as could the auto industry.)

There are plenty of contracting, building, and engineering jobs without the military. Use the resources somewhere else. Build some skyscrapers and start expanding upon public research instead of meddling with the stuff we already know for patent profits. Oh wait... dare I say it... get some people into alternative energies!

MIND

BLOWN

Lol cause skyscrapers are built with government money by the government for the government. Lol. How about you decide to lower taxes with all the less money being spent, and let people research what THEY THINK is useful, not what a bunch of fags in suits that call themselves the government think. Oh and the obviously, the best way to get people into alternative energy (which NO ONE) in America wants, is to have governments impose it, because it knows what's best obv, and also, tax the shit out of alternative energy creators, and don't forget regulations, the more the better, and now that you have a bigger budget, why not, you cal always give some more to the police and enforce your very useful laws, and lastly, keep supporting energy monopolies.

It's not as easy as making a split of conscripts/reservists and full-time "specialists" (certified badasses)

You need a hierarchy of professionalism (and likelihood of fighting) as follows:
1. Super black ops guys
2. Special forces (SEALs, SFOD-D, OGA, CCT, Green Berets, Pararescue, et cetera)
3. Special forces capable (Army Rangers, Marine Force Recon)
4. Specialized regular army troopers (paratroopers, air assault troops)
5. Regular army troopers
6. National Guard/Reservists
7. Irregular/inactive reservists (Individual Ready Reserve, I think it's called)

@ red

It's not simply a question of passing tests on the training ground. A true elite soldier has to be tested in combat. The UK, for its sins, has had a sizable armed forces engaged in various combat zones, which provide a wealth of experience. It is only serving soldiers with this experience who are eligible for selection to the special forces. This puts them at a higher level than anyone recruited straight off civi street.

I mean, defense spending has already been slashed by 15% over the next 10 years. How much deeper do you want it to be cut? Putting that in $$, that's $979 billion in cuts that are already in effect.

@Oct
True, but even among the elite, there can be an elite. We're a population of 17 million, we can pretty much stratify the military in any way we please.

@Gun
Why is it not easy to split the troops in pretty much the way you propose? (Although I would say for the Dutch variant there's something missing between 4 and 5 and I guess 1 and 2 would be close.)

It's just that you seem to rather want only special forces and conscripts, redhouse. That way you won't have special forces though.

According to this chart, the US spent more than the next 10 countries combined, including allies: http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/milex-graphs-for-data-launch-2013/States-with-the-highest-military-expenditure-in-2012.png

We are also the only nation in the world with a global lift capacity. When disasters hit around the world its very often the US Navy that shuttles in supplies. We also are one of the only nations with a need for a 3-part nuclear deterrent, which costs a lot of money.

Also, amazing things come from all of that spending. The Internet comes first to mind. Huge advances in prosthetic limbs, flexible (yet durable) materials, soft materials that can harden on impact, robotics. At least in the R&D area, the US government is absorbing a lot of sunk research costs that simply wouldn't be profitable for private firms to do.

One could achieve equally impressive medical advances outside of the military by banning seatbelts and creating a much higher demand for a wealth of exciting surgical procedures. I dare say there may be a flaw in this plan, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Out of interest, why does the US need a 3-part nuclear deterrent? I can see the point of a nuclear deterrent, but being able to deter in a variety of ways seems a tad extravagant. The British military looked very serious at a chicken based nuclear deterrent for a while, but concluded that it was probably a bad idea and opted for submarines instead.

In case one option is taken out in a first strike scenario, you need to have something ready to counter-strike. Missile silos need time to be prepped for launch, and bombers need....I think its 8-10 minutes to be scrambled and in the air? During that time it's very possible that most or all of those nuclear branches would be wiped out in a first strike scenario. That's why we have the submarines. But to only have submarines is not a good strategy either, since SSBN's don't have the range that land or air based nukes do, and are more vulnerable to being shot down since they're closer to the enemy during boost phase (which is the best time in which you can shoot down an ICBM)

Goldie, you have just posted an excellent argument into why missile silos and aircraft based deterrents are almost entirely useless. If they can be wiped out in a first strike then they are not going to deter anyone. To a major nuclear rival your submarine based deterrent is, despite its flaws, the only real deterrent you have.

It seems their only possible use would be for a major first strike by the US against a rival, which is never going to happen.