You are correct about the funding, but it was still a standing/active military, those were regular GIs and career soldiers fighting Indians, and career soldier Black Jack Pershing was there in WWI, as was career soldier Patton, both graduates of West Point. How would you train soldiers today that need years of training, and how would you handle nuclear missiles and forward bases and prepositioned materials and fueling bases that are needed for survival today?
When the enemy bombers, nuclear missiles, submarines, and carriers are all doing their thing, and their paratroopers and troop transports are hitting our shores only hours after leaving their own nations, it is too late to put together a military machine to save your selves in this modern world.
But the founders were very clear, they feared a "standing army" as they new that once removed from the hands of "the people" it could be a tool used by a tyrannical government to subjugate its people, that is why they almost always referenced citizen militia's when talking about the DEFENSE of the states and the new Federal State.
>How would you train soldiers today that need years of training, and how would you handle nuclear missiles and forward bases and prepositioned materials and fueling bases that are needed for survival today?
That’s actually the easy part: make such assignments rotate among the various state National Guards.
This benefits two ways: it keeps such posts manned AND it keeps trained personnel in-practice.
>When the enemy bombers, nuclear missiles, submarines, and carriers are all doing their thing, and their paratroopers and troop transports are hitting our shores only hours after leaving their own nations, it is too late to put together a military machine to save your selves in this modern world.
And yet the reason Japan never invaded mainland America was summed up in this quote:
“You cannot invade the mainland United States.
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”
— Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (Japanese Navy)
I believe that an armed & trained population is actually a better than a standing army; further, a LOT of what you describe can/should be interdicted by the NAVY which IS authorized to be ‘standing.’ There is a story that shortly before World War I, the German Kaiser was the guest of the Swiss government to observe military maneuvers. The Kaiser asked a Swiss militiaman: “You are 500,000 and you shoot well, but if we attack with 1,000,000 men what will you do?” The soldier replied: “We will shoot twice and go home.”
There is a completely different mentality between a people who have a standing army, and how it is used, and a people who ARE the militia. One of which is that a militia-only people will be much less eager to tromp around the world looking for wars, this is because THEY will be the ones shooting and getting shot at. Secondly they do not have the illusion that “the army will protect us” they have first and foremost in their mind [regarding defense] that they ARE the defense and it is up to them to protect themselves.
There is also the distinct possibility that our Army will be used against us Citizens; the existence of the Oathkeepers is proof that this is AT LEAST possible. I think the realization, while late in coming, is a good thing: America is NOT immune to “It can’t happen here” thoughts and complacency.