[kabar]

Time for a real conservative approach; cut the active-duty military to 500,000; change the name of the DOD to the Department of War, and only conduct actual wars, not extended occupations.

I assume your cuts in equipment would be commensurate with the size of the force. How many ships, planes, tanks, etc. should this new 500,000 force have? What would be the breakdown among the various services? What percentage of our GDP should be spent on defense?

As of 30 September 2010, 1,430,895 people were on active duty in the military, with an additional 848,000 people in the seven reserve components. You are proposing a reduction of two thirds in active duty personnel.

The Chinese have 2.3 million active duty personnel. Russia has 1 million. Mexico has 267,000. ROK 640,000.

Shouldn't our military be structured based on threat assessments and the capabilities of our potential enemies?

[rodguy911]

The original need for any government at all was to keep us safe from foreign intervention and preserve the currency. Not epa, not SS, not medicare, unending unemployment benefits, free obama phones!! We have lost sight of what is truly important to preserve our country. Sad days ahead I fear.

[Bernard]

Shouldn't our military be structured based on threat assessments and the capabilities of our potential enemies?

Yes. We have nuclear weapons, and a distinct advantage in drone / remote warfare technology. And we are not in a declared war. Along with the 1.4 million active duty you cite, we also have the 20,000 contractor Secretary Of State army in Iraq, the TSA, and other people we don't want to call military on various payrolls all over the place.

So if we did have a shooting war, and we can send in drones or warplanes stationed in Missouri, why do we need a military geared to sending 300-400,000 troops somewhere for years at a time with no end result in mind?