Why does the USA have such a large conventional military?

FYI: I have no first hand experience with a real world military or weapons development.

Why does the US have such a large conventional military? A military half the current size would be able to defeat any other country, bomb Iran into the stone age (albeit take twice as long to do so), or fight al qaeda in Afghanistan. Moreover, 'fighting' terrorists is something best done with special forces and spies, with the conventional military providing death from above on demand.

With the exception of a future China, no other nation will have the ability to economically outdo the United States.

Why does the US military insist on having weapon systems designed specifically for itself instead of purchasing 'off the shelf'? What is wrong with letting another country make a proven weapon system and then buying a manufacturing license like Iraq, Iran, India and other countries do with Russia while we stick to designing superiority weapons like the F22 and the next generation attack submarine? The US is designing a future destroyer. So is Britain. Why not buy destroyers from Britain?

We have (had?) an industrial base and can always build more arms and armor if the need arises.

If the concern is protecting American lives from external (terrorist) threats, a new wall on the 2000 mile US-Mexico border would cost ~8 billion (http://www.weneedafence.com/). With 1 watchperson per mile at 40 hour shift (4 shifts for 24/7 surveillance), and $75,000 per person per year (including overhead), nets $600 million in annual salary. If one wants to be more ambitious, tripling the budget would allow a similar border on the Canadian border. Further, sea borders could be patrolled by small surveillance craft, predator UAVs and coast guard patrol boats. To patrol the US sea borders could run in the low tens of billions/year.

Note: I do not think the smaller military would be able to hold all of Iraq. We might have invaded, and then left at least part of the country, or bombed Iraq back to the stone age to halt Saddam's inexorable drive to get nuclear weapons if we had a smaller military.

A few of you brought up that the US military’s size depends on the tasks it is assigned. My question assumed the military’s tasks were held to a bare minimum. So, I guess the answer is: “It depends on what Congress and the President tell it to do.” Ignore the rest of this post then.

The rest of this post assumes the US military’s job is solely to defend the 50 states, US shipping, aid in operations against terrorists and deter other (much weaker) nations from acquiring nukes.

This is a list of the top annual defense budgets. This is borrowed from
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

[borrowed from here]
World $1100 billion 2004 est. [see Note 4]
Rest-of-World [all but USA] $500 billion 2004 est. [see Note 4]
United States $623 billion FY08 budget [see Note 6]
China $65.0 billion 2004 [see Note 1]
Russia $50.0 billion [see Note 5]
France $45.0 billion 2005
United Kingdom $42.8 billion 2005 est.
Japan $41.75 billion 2007
Germany $35.1 billion 2003
Italy $28.2 billion 2003
South Korea $21.1 billion 2003 est.
India $19.0 billion 2005 est.
Saudi Arabia $18.0 billion 2005 est.
Australia $16.9 billion 2006
Turkey $12.2 billion 2003
Brazil $9.9 billion 2005 est.
Spain $9.9 billion 2003
Canada $9.8 billion 2003
Israel $9.4 billion FY06 [see Note 7]
Netherlands $9.4 billion 2004
Taiwan $7.9 billion 2005 est.
Mexico $6.1 billion 2005 est.

Note 6 - The FY2008 budget requests $481.4 billion in discretionary authority for the Department of Defense base budget, an 11.3 percent increase over the projected enacted level for fiscal 2007, for real growth of 8.6 percent; and $141.7 billion to continue the fight in the Global War on Terror (GWOT)
[end borrowed stuff]

Of the top countries by defense spending:
China - potential threat
Russia - potential threat
France - ally (NATO)
UK - ally (NATO)
Japan - ally
Germany - ally (NATO)
Italy - ally (NATO)
South Korea - ally
India - not hostile (friendly?)
Saudi Arabia - ???
Australia - friendly
Turkey - ally (NATO)
Brazil - not hostile (friendly?)
Spain - ally (NATO)
Canada - ally (NATO)

Most of those nations are allies of the United States.

The Continental US is surrounded by thousands of miles of ocean and bordered by 2 friendly and significantly weaker nations. To attack the Continental US conventionally, requires long range bombers to reach the continental USA and bomber escorts to ward off US F22s or F15s, or a navy with sufficient AA to ward off decimation by the US air force. Those things are expensive and the only nonallied countries with that kind of income to even ATTEMPT such an attack are Russia, China, India, Saudi Arabia and Brazil.

I figured the US would get manufacturing licenses from NATO members. I would guess we could trust countries we have a military alliance with to not block sales of weapons or weapon parts. I also figured the point of an manufacturing license was to not be dependent on foreign nations to build the weapon system anyways. I don’t see why parts factories could not be set up in the USA.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.