It is not the right number. You suggested we reduce our active duty force by a1most 1 million to 500,000. You stated in your post #36, "cut the active-duty military to 500,000;"
We have to align our military strength to what we can do, not what we used to be able to do.
We have been doing that for some time now. Clinton made huge cuts to the military as part of the peace dividend reducing our forces by almost a third. Bush 43 built part of the capability back, but it was not anywhere near where it was under his father, Bush 41. We couldn't do an Operation Desert Storm today. We have changed our force structure from fighting two wars at one time to one and one-half to something even less than that today.
Great nations in decline don't immediately reduce their forces signficantly. It is phased in over time rationalizing each step but actually forced by funding shortages. The UK went thru the same thing with their no forces East of Suez and subsequent and continuing cuts in its forces. Western Europe has been doing the same thing with countries spending about 1% of GDP on defense. They had the luxury of the US providing the security umbrella. Today, NATO is really a hollow shell. The welfare state demands more and more money to keep it going. Defense is an easy target.
Next comes ever increasing taxes. The US has a ways to go in that regard. Our people have not experienced European level taxation with its VATs and other fees like paying a television and radio tax for every one of those you own (Germany). Once Obamacare gets going, you will see more pressure for a VAT and cap and trade. There will also be more means testing of government benefits. Still, it will not be enough to fund the welfare state. It will consume everything until it collapses.
Before I retired from the USAF, we had 2.1 million in uniform.
Half a million is a “Kick Me” and no money for hardware sign on America’s backside.